Script SecurityApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2017-1000107
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 · uneditedScript Security Plugin did not apply sandboxing restrictions to constructor invocations via positional arguments list, super constructor invocations, method references, and type coercion expressions. This could be used to invoke arbitrary constructors and methods, bypassing sandbox protection.
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 Jenkins Script Security Plugin failed to apply sandboxing restrictions to constructor invocations via positional arguments, super constructor invocations, method references, and type coercion expressions. This allowed attackers to bypass sandbox protections and invoke arbitrary constructors and methods, potentially executing malicious code.
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
Script SecurityApplication
= 1.30CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Script Security Plugin versionNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab and locate 'Script Security' plugin, or check the $JENKINS_HOME/plugins/script-security folder for the version manifestAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.30
-
Check plugin configuration fileExamine the script-security plugin configuration in $JENKINS_HOME/plugins/script-security/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for the Implementation-Version attributeAffected if The version listed is 1.30
-
Review Jenkins pipeline scripts, Job DSL scripts, or any Groovy code that uses the 'evaluate' method or @library annotations with sandboxed execution enabledAffected if Sandbox protection is enabled and scripts use constructor calls, super constructors, method references, or type coercion within the sandboxed context
The environment is affected if Jenkins Script Security Plugin version 1.30 is installed AND the sandbox is being used to execute Groovy scripts containing constructor invocations, method references, or type coercion expressions.
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 Script Security Plugin to a version that properly applies sandboxing to all expression types. If immediate upgrade is not possible, restrict Script Security sandbox usage and audit existing scripts for malicious content.
Fix this in Script Security
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000107 — 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-2017-1000107 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