🚨 CVE-2026-9083
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A realm administrator with the "manage-realm" role can exploit this vulnerability by submitting an arbitrary filesystem path as a keystore parameter when creating a key provider component. This allows the administrator to probe arbitrary filesystem paths, determining which files exist and are readable by the Keycloak process. This information disclosure could be used to identify high-value targets for follow-on attacks.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A realm administrator with the "manage-realm" role can exploit this vulnerability by submitting an arbitrary filesystem path as a keystore parameter when creating a key provider component. This allows the administrator to probe arbitrary filesystem paths, determining which files exist and are readable by the Keycloak process. This information disclosure could be used to identify high-value targets for follow-on attacks.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9086
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A remote attacker with administrative privileges, specifically those with `manage-client` permission or access to client registration endpoints, could bypass client Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) validation. This is achieved by registering a malicious client with a specially crafted redirect URI using a case-insensitive `javascript:` or `data:` scheme. This Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows for arbitrary code execution in the Keycloak origin when a victim clicks the crafted link, such as in the logout flow or the Admin Console.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A remote attacker with administrative privileges, specifically those with `manage-client` permission or access to client registration endpoints, could bypass client Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) validation. This is achieved by registering a malicious client with a specially crafted redirect URI using a case-insensitive `javascript:` or `data:` scheme. This Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability allows for arbitrary code execution in the Keycloak origin when a victim clicks the crafted link, such as in the logout flow or the Admin Console.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9099
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A missing authorization check in the GroupResource.addChild() endpoint within the Admin REST API allows an authenticated user with limited administrative privileges to reparent any existing group. When Fine-Grained Admin Permissions v2 (FGAPv2) is enabled, an attacker with management rights over a single low-privilege group can reparent a highly privileged group (such as one possessing the realm-admin role) under their managed group.
Because group permissions follow a hierarchical structure, this action unauthorizedly grants the attacker management and password-reset capabilities over the members of the targeted privileged group. An attacker can exploit this to reset an administrator's password, compromise the account, and achieve a full realm takeover, leading to a complete compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak. A missing authorization check in the GroupResource.addChild() endpoint within the Admin REST API allows an authenticated user with limited administrative privileges to reparent any existing group. When Fine-Grained Admin Permissions v2 (FGAPv2) is enabled, an attacker with management rights over a single low-privilege group can reparent a highly privileged group (such as one possessing the realm-admin role) under their managed group.
Because group permissions follow a hierarchical structure, this action unauthorizedly grants the attacker management and password-reset capabilities over the members of the targeted privileged group. An attacker can exploit this to reset an administrator's password, compromise the account, and achieve a full realm takeover, leading to a complete compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9705
A flaw was found in Keycloak's client registration service. A remote attacker, possessing a previously issued Registration Access Token (RAT), could exploit this vulnerability to re-enable a client that an administrator had explicitly disabled. This bypasses security controls, allowing the attacker to reset the client's secret and potentially regain privileged API access. The primary impact includes unauthorized information disclosure and potential integrity compromise.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak's client registration service. A remote attacker, possessing a previously issued Registration Access Token (RAT), could exploit this vulnerability to re-enable a client that an administrator had explicitly disabled. This bypasses security controls, allowing the attacker to reset the client's secret and potentially regain privileged API access. The primary impact includes unauthorized information disclosure and potential integrity compromise.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9799
A flaw was found in org.keycloak.authorization. An authenticated user with a granted User-Managed Access (UMA) permission ticket for one resource can exploit this by using a specific permission request prefix to bypass per-resource access control. This allows the user to gain unauthorized access to all resources of that type within the same resource server, even if they do not have a ticket for those specific resources. This vulnerability requires the resource server to be configured in PERMISSIVE policy enforcement mode and affects typed resources with ownerManagedAccess enabled, where no explicit policy protects the resource type. The primary consequence is unauthorized information disclosure or modification of resources.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in org.keycloak.authorization. An authenticated user with a granted User-Managed Access (UMA) permission ticket for one resource can exploit this by using a specific permission request prefix to bypass per-resource access control. This allows the user to gain unauthorized access to all resources of that type within the same resource server, even if they do not have a ticket for those specific resources. This vulnerability requires the resource server to be configured in PERMISSIVE policy enforcement mode and affects typed resources with ownerManagedAccess enabled, where no explicit policy protects the resource type. The primary consequence is unauthorized information disclosure or modification of resources.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-9800
A flaw was found in Keycloak Policy Enforcer. This vulnerability allows any authenticated user to bypass all authorization policies, including role, scope, and User-Managed Access (UMA) permission checks. By including the configured access-denied page path within a request URL, either as a path segment or a query parameter, an attacker can gain unauthorized access to protected resources.
🎖@cveNotify
A flaw was found in Keycloak Policy Enforcer. This vulnerability allows any authenticated user to bypass all authorization policies, including role, scope, and User-Managed Access (UMA) permission checks. By including the configured access-denied page path within a request URL, either as a path segment or a query parameter, an attacker can gain unauthorized access to protected resources.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2026-12151
Impact:
The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize on the cumulative byte count of fragments in a message but does not enforce a limit on the number of fragments. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small or empty continuation frames that each pass per-frame and cumulative-size validation, collectively causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service.
Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) or the WebSocketStream API that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint.
All releases starting at undici 6.17.0 are affected.
Patches: Upgrade to undici >= 6.26.0, >= 7.28.0, or >= 8.5.0. Workarounds:
No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.
🎖@cveNotify
Impact:
The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize on the cumulative byte count of fragments in a message but does not enforce a limit on the number of fragments. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small or empty continuation frames that each pass per-frame and cumulative-size validation, collectively causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service.
Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) or the WebSocketStream API that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint.
All releases starting at undici 6.17.0 are affected.
Patches: Upgrade to undici >= 6.26.0, >= 7.28.0, or >= 8.5.0. Workarounds:
No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.
🎖@cveNotify
OpenJS Foundation CVE Numbering Authority
Security Advisories
The OpenJS Foundation’s CVE Numbering Authority (CNA)
🚨 CVE-2026-9675
Impact:
The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize per-frame but does not enforce the cumulative size of fragmented uncompressed messages. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small fragments that each pass per-frame validation but collectively exceed the configured limit, causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service.
Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint.
This is a regression specific to undici 8.1.0. The 6.25.0 line shipped the equivalent cumulative check from the start and is unaffected. The 7.x line never had the maxPayloadSize feature and is also unaffected.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici >= 8.5.0.
Workarounds:
No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.
🎖@cveNotify
Impact:
The undici WebSocket client enforces maxPayloadSize per-frame but does not enforce the cumulative size of fragmented uncompressed messages. A malicious WebSocket server can stream many small fragments that each pass per-frame validation but collectively exceed the configured limit, causing unbounded memory growth in the client process. The result is memory exhaustion and a denial of service.
Affected applications are those using the undici WebSocket client (new WebSocket(...)) that can be induced to connect to an attacker-controlled or compromised WebSocket endpoint.
This is a regression specific to undici 8.1.0. The 6.25.0 line shipped the equivalent cumulative check from the start and is unaffected. The 7.x line never had the maxPayloadSize feature and is also unaffected.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici >= 8.5.0.
Workarounds:
No workaround is available. The fix must be applied through an upgrade.
🎖@cveNotify
OpenJS Foundation CVE Numbering Authority
Security Advisories
The OpenJS Foundation’s CVE Numbering Authority (CNA)
🚨 CVE-2026-11525
Impact:
When undici parses a Set-Cookie header, it accepts any SameSite attribute value that contains Strict, Lax, or None as a substring, rather than the case-insensitive exact match specified by RFC 6265. Non-spec values are silently mapped to one of the three standard tokens. For example, SameSite=NoneOfYourBusiness is parsed as None (the most permissive setting), and SameSite=StrictLax is parsed as Lax (a downgrade from Strict).
Affected applications are those that consume Set-Cookie headers from server responses (for example via undici's fetch or proxy code paths) and then forward or rely on the parsed sameSite attribute. A malicious or non-compliant server can coerce the consumer's view of a cookie's SameSite policy to a weaker value, silently degrading the SameSite enforcement the cookie is supposed to provide.
This was introduced in undici 5.15.0 when the cookies feature was added.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v6.26.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
After parsing a Set-Cookie header, validate that the resulting sameSite attribute is one of 'Strict', 'Lax', or 'None' (exact, case-insensitive) before forwarding or relying on it.
🎖@cveNotify
Impact:
When undici parses a Set-Cookie header, it accepts any SameSite attribute value that contains Strict, Lax, or None as a substring, rather than the case-insensitive exact match specified by RFC 6265. Non-spec values are silently mapped to one of the three standard tokens. For example, SameSite=NoneOfYourBusiness is parsed as None (the most permissive setting), and SameSite=StrictLax is parsed as Lax (a downgrade from Strict).
Affected applications are those that consume Set-Cookie headers from server responses (for example via undici's fetch or proxy code paths) and then forward or rely on the parsed sameSite attribute. A malicious or non-compliant server can coerce the consumer's view of a cookie's SameSite policy to a weaker value, silently degrading the SameSite enforcement the cookie is supposed to provide.
This was introduced in undici 5.15.0 when the cookies feature was added.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v6.26.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
After parsing a Set-Cookie header, validate that the resulting sameSite attribute is one of 'Strict', 'Lax', or 'None' (exact, case-insensitive) before forwarding or relying on it.
🎖@cveNotify
OpenJS Foundation CVE Numbering Authority
Security Advisories
The OpenJS Foundation’s CVE Numbering Authority (CNA)
🚨 CVE-2026-9678
Impact:
Undici's cache interceptor incorrectly classifies some responses as cacheable when the upstream Cache-Control header uses whitespace-padded qualified private or no-cache field names such as private=" authorization" or no-cache="\tauthorization". The parser preserves the surrounding whitespace, so later comparisons against the literal authorization field name fail and the response is stored.
In shared-cache mode, this allows a response containing one user's authenticated data to be served from cache to a subsequent caller, including an unauthenticated caller, when both requests resolve to the same cache key.
Affected applications are those that explicitly enable the cache interceptor (interceptors.cache()) in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with non-canonical qualified private or no-cache directives.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
If upgrade is not immediately possible, disable shared-cache mode for traffic that includes Authorization headers, avoid caching responses to authenticated requests, or add Vary: Authorization upstream.
🎖@cveNotify
Impact:
Undici's cache interceptor incorrectly classifies some responses as cacheable when the upstream Cache-Control header uses whitespace-padded qualified private or no-cache field names such as private=" authorization" or no-cache="\tauthorization". The parser preserves the surrounding whitespace, so later comparisons against the literal authorization field name fail and the response is stored.
In shared-cache mode, this allows a response containing one user's authenticated data to be served from cache to a subsequent caller, including an unauthenticated caller, when both requests resolve to the same cache key.
Affected applications are those that explicitly enable the cache interceptor (interceptors.cache()) in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with non-canonical qualified private or no-cache directives.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
If upgrade is not immediately possible, disable shared-cache mode for traffic that includes Authorization headers, avoid caching responses to authenticated requests, or add Vary: Authorization upstream.
🎖@cveNotify
OpenJS Foundation CVE Numbering Authority
Security Advisories
The OpenJS Foundation’s CVE Numbering Authority (CNA)
🚨 CVE-2026-9679
Impact:
undici's cookie parser in parseSetCookie percent-decodes cookie values via qsUnescape, turning encoded sequences like %0D%0A, %00, %3B, and %3D into their literal byte equivalents. RFC 6265 §5.4 does not specify any decoding and browsers do not decode either.
Applications that parse a Set-Cookie header and then forward the parsed value into a response header (proxies, middleware, SSR frameworks) become vulnerable to HTTP response header injection: an attacker-controlled upstream can inject arbitrary Set-Cookie, Location, or Cache-Control headers into the application's downstream response, enabling session fixation, open redirect, or cache poisoning.
Affected applications are those that use undici's cookie parsing (parseSetCookie, parseCookie, getSetCookies) and forward the parsed cookie value into a response header.
This was introduced in undici 7.0.0 via PR #3789.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v6.26.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
If upgrade is not immediately possible, do not forward values returned by parseSetCookie/parseCookie/getSetCookies directly into response headers; sanitize the value first to strip or reject CR, LF, NUL, ;, and = bytes.
🎖@cveNotify
Impact:
undici's cookie parser in parseSetCookie percent-decodes cookie values via qsUnescape, turning encoded sequences like %0D%0A, %00, %3B, and %3D into their literal byte equivalents. RFC 6265 §5.4 does not specify any decoding and browsers do not decode either.
Applications that parse a Set-Cookie header and then forward the parsed value into a response header (proxies, middleware, SSR frameworks) become vulnerable to HTTP response header injection: an attacker-controlled upstream can inject arbitrary Set-Cookie, Location, or Cache-Control headers into the application's downstream response, enabling session fixation, open redirect, or cache poisoning.
Affected applications are those that use undici's cookie parsing (parseSetCookie, parseCookie, getSetCookies) and forward the parsed cookie value into a response header.
This was introduced in undici 7.0.0 via PR #3789.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v6.26.0, v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
If upgrade is not immediately possible, do not forward values returned by parseSetCookie/parseCookie/getSetCookies directly into response headers; sanitize the value first to strip or reject CR, LF, NUL, ;, and = bytes.
🎖@cveNotify
OpenJS Foundation CVE Numbering Authority
Security Advisories
The OpenJS Foundation’s CVE Numbering Authority (CNA)
🚨 CVE-2026-9697
Impact:
undici's ProxyAgent silently drops the requestTls option when configured with a SOCKS5 proxy URI (socks5:// or socks://). The target HTTPS connection through the SOCKS5 tunnel falls back to Node's default trust store, ignoring user-configured ca, cert, key, rejectUnauthorized, and servername settings.
Applications that pin to an internal or corporate CA via requestTls.ca will, when their proxy URI is SOCKS5, get the default Mozilla CA bundle as the trust anchor instead. Any cert signed by any publicly-trusted CA for the target hostname is accepted, breaking the intended pin and enabling MITM read and tamper of the HTTPS exchange.
Affected applications are those that use undici's ProxyAgent (or Socks5ProxyAgent directly) with SOCKS5 AND rely on requestTls for TLS scope restriction. The bug was introduced in undici 7.23.0 when SOCKS5 support was added.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
No workaround is available within the SOCKS5 path. If a SOCKS5 proxy with TLS scope restriction is required and an upgrade is not yet possible, route the traffic through an HTTP-proxy ProxyAgent instead, where requestTls is honored correctly.
🎖@cveNotify
Impact:
undici's ProxyAgent silently drops the requestTls option when configured with a SOCKS5 proxy URI (socks5:// or socks://). The target HTTPS connection through the SOCKS5 tunnel falls back to Node's default trust store, ignoring user-configured ca, cert, key, rejectUnauthorized, and servername settings.
Applications that pin to an internal or corporate CA via requestTls.ca will, when their proxy URI is SOCKS5, get the default Mozilla CA bundle as the trust anchor instead. Any cert signed by any publicly-trusted CA for the target hostname is accepted, breaking the intended pin and enabling MITM read and tamper of the HTTPS exchange.
Affected applications are those that use undici's ProxyAgent (or Socks5ProxyAgent directly) with SOCKS5 AND rely on requestTls for TLS scope restriction. The bug was introduced in undici 7.23.0 when SOCKS5 support was added.
Patches:
Upgrade to undici v7.28.0 or v8.5.0.
Workarounds:
No workaround is available within the SOCKS5 path. If a SOCKS5 proxy with TLS scope restriction is required and an upgrade is not yet possible, route the traffic through an HTTP-proxy ProxyAgent instead, where requestTls is honored correctly.
🎖@cveNotify
OpenJS Foundation CVE Numbering Authority
Security Advisories
The OpenJS Foundation’s CVE Numbering Authority (CNA)
🚨 CVE-2022-24291
Certain HP Print devices may be vulnerable to potential information disclosure, denial of service, or remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP Print devices may be vulnerable to potential information disclosure, denial of service, or remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2022-24292
Certain HP Print devices may be vulnerable to potential information disclosure, denial of service, or remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP Print devices may be vulnerable to potential information disclosure, denial of service, or remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2022-24293
Certain HP Print devices may be vulnerable to potential information disclosure, denial of service, or remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP Print devices may be vulnerable to potential information disclosure, denial of service, or remote code execution.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2023-27971
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Buffer Overflow and/or Elevation of Privilege.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Buffer Overflow and/or Elevation of Privilege.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2023-27972
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Buffer Overflow and/or Remote Code Execution.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Buffer Overflow and/or Remote Code Execution.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2023-27973
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Heap Overflow and/or Remote Code Execution.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Heap Overflow and/or Remote Code Execution.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2023-35175
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Potential Remote Code Execution and/or Elevation of Privilege via Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) using the Web Service Eventing model.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Potential Remote Code Execution and/or Elevation of Privilege via Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) using the Web Service Eventing model.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2023-35176
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Buffer Overflow and/or Denial of Service when using the backup & restore feature through the embedded web service on the device.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to Buffer Overflow and/or Denial of Service when using the backup & restore feature through the embedded web service on the device.
🎖@cveNotify
🚨 CVE-2023-35177
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow related to the compact font format parser.
🎖@cveNotify
Certain HP LaserJet Pro print products are potentially vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow related to the compact font format parser.
🎖@cveNotify