OpenshiftApplication · Redhat
CVE-2015-5325
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedJenkins before 1.638 and LTS before 1.625.2 allow attackers to bypass intended slave-to-master access restrictions by leveraging a JNLP slave. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-3665.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceJenkins versions before 1.638 and LTS before 1.625.2 contain a security bypass vulnerability in slave-to-master access restrictions when using JNLP (Java Network Launch Protocol) slaves. The flaw exists because the prior fix for CVE-2014-3665 was incomplete, allowing attackers with JNLP slave access to circumvent intended security boundaries between slaves and the master.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
OpenshiftApplication
<= 3.1= 2.0
JenkinsApplication
<= 1.625.1<= 1.637CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Jenkins versionAccess the Jenkins web UI and look at the footer, or run 'java -jar jenkins.war --version' from the command lineAffected if Version is 1.638 or below for weekly releases, or 1.625.1 or below for LTS releases
-
Confirm Jenkins release typeCheck whether the installation is a weekly release or LTS (Long Term Support) release by viewing the version number in the UI or documentationAffected if Running any weekly release 1.637 or earlier, or any LTS release 1.625.1 or earlier
-
Verify JNLP launcher is configuredNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Nodes > select a node > check the Launch method. Look for 'Launch agent via Java Web Start' or 'JNLP' as the launch methodAffected if JNLP launcher is enabled on any node configuration
-
Check for active JNLP agent connectionsGo to Manage Jenkins > Manage Nodes and review the list of connected agents. Inspect agent launch logs or configuration to confirm JNLP-based connections existAffected if Any agents are connected via JNLP protocol or JNLP launch method is configured for any node
You are affected if your Jenkins version falls within 1.625.1 or earlier (LTS) or 1.637 or earlier (weekly) AND JNLP slave launch is enabled or any JNLP agents are connected to the master.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade Jenkins to version 1.638 or later (or LTS 1.625.2 or later) to obtain the complete fix for this access restriction bypass. If immediate upgrade is not possible, consider disabling JNLP slave launch or implementing additional network-level controls.
Fix this in Openshift
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,640.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-5325 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-5325 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data