CVE-2026-14781

Home/CVE/A flaw exists in the org.keycloak.broker.oidc package where the OIDC broker incorrectly synchronizes the email_verified

CVE

↯ PDF report

A flaw exists in the org.keycloak.broker.oidc package where the OIDC broker incorrectly synchronizes the email_verified

A flaw exists in the org.keycloak.broker.oidc package where the OIDC broker incorrectly synchronizes the email_verified claim. When an OIDC identity provider is configured with trustEmail=true and the userinfo endpoint is enabled, Keycloak retrieves the email address from the userinfo response but retrieves the email_verified status exclusively from the id_token. The root cause is a lack of validation ensuring that the email_verified claim in the id_token actually refers to the email address returned by the userinfo endpoint.

If these two sources return different email addresses, the id_token's email_verified=true claim is blindly applied to the userinfo email. Exploitation Conditions: The OIDC identity provider must have trustEmail set to true (non-default). The userinfo endpoint must be enabled (default).

The attacker must control or have compromised the upstream OIDC provider. Concrete Impact: Mark arbitrary email addresses as verified in the Keycloak database. Bypass email-based security controls or verification workflows.

Potential account takeover if the application relies solely on the email_verified flag from the IdP to link accounts.

MEDIUM · CVSS 4.8 EPSS 0.00196

EPSS exploitation odds0.20% · top 90%

Monitor

No active-exploitation, high-EPSS, or public-exploit signals - routine patching cadence

No Sigma yet — build one → YARA rules0

Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots

NVD CVE.org CISA Exploit-DB GitHub PoC VulnCheck KEV GreyNoise

▸ How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch

This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-14781, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.

Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:

CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.

How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.

Then what - two workflows:

Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.

Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

▣

Severity & exploitation scoring

View on NVD →

CVSS base score

4.8

MEDIUMCVSS v3.1 · [email protected]

EPSS exploitation probability

0.20%

Top 90%odds of exploitation in the next 30 days

CVSS metric silhouette

shape grows toward worst-case

SSVC triage

No SSVC vulnrichment for this CVE. CISA's Vulnrichment program scores newer CVEs (~2024 onwards) plus selected older critical ones. Use the EPSS probability + KEV status to triage instead.

CVSS vector breakdown

Exploitability - how they get in

Attack Vector

Network Adjacent Local Physical

Attack Complexity

Low High

Privileges Required

None Low High

User Interaction

None Required

Scope

Unchanged Changed

Impact - what breaks

Confidentiality

None Low High

Integrity

None Low High

Availability

None Low High

VECTORCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack path

Full kill chain

→

◆

ATT&CK techniques

Techniques this CVE enables. Pills with a solid outline are high confidence - named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei, or human-curated by CTID; the rest are inferred from the weakness type using MITRE's CVE Mapping Methodology and the CWE → CAPEC chain. Broad, generic-weakness guesses are filtered out. A small N× marks a technique that N independent sources agree on.

T1190 · Exploit Public-Facing Application

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques