Blue OceanApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2017-1000105
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 · uneditedThe optional Run/Artifacts permission can be enabled by setting a Java system property. Blue Ocean did not check this permission before providing access to archived artifacts, Item/Read permission was sufficient.
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 Blue Ocean plugin for Jenkins failed to enforce an optional Run/Artifacts permission when serving archived build artifacts. Users with only Item/Read permission could access artifacts that should require the elevated Run/Artifacts permission, because Blue Ocean did not check this permission before providing access to archived artifacts.
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
Blue OceanApplication
<= 1.1.5= 1.2.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Verify Blue Ocean plugin is installedCheck the Jenkins plugins directory (typically /var/lib/jenkins/plugins/) for blueocean-api.hpi, blueocean-core-js.hpi, or other blueocean-* files, or via Jenkins UI at Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > InstalledAffected if Blue Ocean plugin files are present in the Jenkins plugins directory
-
Check Blue Ocean versionIn Jenkins UI, go to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed and locate Blue Ocean in the list to view the version number, or inspect the plugin manifest file (META-INF/MANIFEST.MF) inside the blueocean-core-js.hpi or blueocean-api.hpi fileAffected if The installed version is 1.1.5 or earlier, or exactly 1.2.0
-
Confirm Run/Artifacts permission is configuredNavigate to the job configuration in Jenkins, click on the Permissions section, and verify if the Run/Artifacts permission is explicitly enabled for the project. Alternatively, check if the job uses a authorization matrix that includes Run/Artifacts permissionsAffected if Run/Artifacts permission is explicitly set (the vulnerability only applies when this optional elevated permission is configured)
You are affected if Blue Ocean plugin version is 1.1.5 or earlier, or exactly 1.2.0, AND the Run/Artifacts permission is configured on jobs while Blue Ocean serves archived artifacts.
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 Blue Ocean to the patched version that enforces Run/Artifacts permission checking, or disable the Java system property that enables this optional permission if not needed.
Fix this in Blue Ocean
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000105 — 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-2017-1000105 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