CVE-2019-10311
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 · uneditedA missing permission check in Jenkins Ansible Tower Plugin 0.9.1 and earlier in the TowerInstallation.TowerInstallationDescriptor#doTestTowerConnection form validation method allowed attackers with Overall/Read permission to connect to an attacker-specified URL using attacker-specified credentials IDs obtained through another method, capturing credentials stored in Jenkins.
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 Ansible Tower Plugin for Jenkins versions 0.9.1 and earlier lacks a permission check in the TowerInstallationDescriptor#doTestTowerConnection form validation method. Any user with Overall/Read permission can trigger this method to connect to attacker-controlled URLs using credential IDs, enabling credential harvesting from Jenkins' credential store.
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<= 0.9.1CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Verify Ansible Tower plugin is installedNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab and search for 'Ansible Tower' in the list of installed plugins, or check /var/jenkins_home/plugins for the ansible-tower folderAffected if The Ansible Tower plugin appears in the installed plugins list
-
Identify installed plugin versionIn Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed, locate the Ansible Tower plugin and note the version number displayed in the plugin detailsAffected if The installed version is 0.9.1 or earlier
-
Confirm plugin is loaded and activeCheck Jenkins system log or navigate to Manage Jenkins > Configure System and look for the Ansible Tower section to confirm the plugin is actively loadedAffected if The plugin configuration section exists and the plugin is active
-
Test permission boundary on form validation endpointAs a user with only Overall/Read permission (non-admin), attempt to access or trigger the doTestTowerConnection form validation endpoint via the plugin's connection test featureAffected if A user with only Overall/Read permission can successfully trigger the connection test to an arbitrary URL
If the Ansible Tower plugin version is 0.9.1 or earlier and non-admin users can access the connection test function, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 the Ansible Tower Plugin to a version beyond 0.9.1 that includes proper permission checks, or add @Require(OverallPermission.ADMINISTER) annotation to the doTestTowerConnection method to restrict access to administrative users.
- Consultation2.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10311 — 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-2019-10311 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