CVE-2017-1000091
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 · uneditedGitHub Branch Source Plugin connects to a user-specified GitHub API URL (e.g. GitHub Enterprise) as part of form validation and completion (e.g. to verify Scan Credentials are correct). This functionality improperly checked permissions, allowing any user with Overall/Read access to Jenkins to connect to any web server and send credentials with a known ID, thereby possibly capturing them. Additionally, this functionality did not require POST requests be used, thereby allowing the above to be performed without direct access to Jenkins via Cross-Site Request Forgery.
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 confidenceThe GitHub Branch Source Plugin has two related flaws in its form validation for GitHub API URL connections: (1) improper permission checking that allows any user with Overall/Read access to trigger connections to arbitrary web servers while sending credentials with known IDs, potentially exposing them to attacker-controlled servers; and (2) missing POST request enforcement allowing CSRF attacks to trigger these connections without direct Jenkins access.
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= 0.1= 1.0= 1.1= 1.2= 1.3= 1.4= 1.5= 1.6= 1.7= 1.8= 1.8.1= 1.9CVSS 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
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Confirm Jenkins is runningAccess the Jenkins dashboard or check the Jenkins process/service statusAffected if Jenkins is not installed or not running, the plugin vulnerability does not apply
-
Verify GitHub Branch Source Plugin is installedNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed, or list files in the Jenkins plugins directory (typically /var/lib/jenkins/plugins/ or C:\Program Files\Jenkins\plugins)Affected if The GitHub Branch Source Plugin is not present in the plugin listing
-
Check the installed version of GitHub Branch Source PluginIn Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed, find GitHub Branch Source and note the version column; alternatively, examine the plugin's manifest file (META-INF/MANIFEST.MF) in the plugin directoryAffected if The installed version is 0.1, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.8.1, or 1.9 (exact match required)
-
Identify if GitHub API URL form validation is accessibleNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Configure System > GitHub > GitHub Servers, or locate the GitHub Branch Source configuration in a job that uses this plugin source; look for fields to configure GitHub API URLAffected if The GitHub API URL configuration form is present and accessible to users with Overall/Read permission
-
Check user permission configurationIn Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Users, verify that any user account or group has Overall/Read permission (the minimum required to exploit this flaw)Affected if Users or groups with Overall/Read access exist in Jenkins
A user is affected if Jenkins is running with GitHub Branch Source Plugin versions 0.1 through 1.9 installed and the GitHub API URL configuration form is accessible to users with Overall/Read permissions.
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 dataUpdate GitHub Branch Source Plugin to a patched version once available, and rotate any credentials that may have been transmitted through the vulnerable validation feature as a precaution.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,168.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000091 — 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-2017-1000091 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