Configuration As CodeApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2019-10367
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 · uneditedDue to an incomplete fix of CVE-2019-10343, Jenkins Configuration as Code Plugin 1.26 and earlier did not properly apply masking to some values expected to be hidden when logging the configuration being applied.
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 Configuration as Code Plugin 1.26 and earlier had an incomplete fix for CVE-2019-10343, allowing sensitive values intended to be masked (such as passwords or secrets) to be exposed in plaintext during logging of the configuration being applied. This occurs when the plugin logs the configuration but fails to properly apply masking to certain hidden values.
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
Configuration As CodeApplication
<= 1.26CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Confirm JCasC plugin installation and versionGo to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab, or use the Jenkins CLI: `java -jar jenkins-cli.jar -s http://localhost:8080 list-plugins` or check the file `JENKINS_HOME/plugins/jenkins-configuration-as-code.jpi` for the version. Also check `MANIFEST.MF` inside the plugin archive.Affected if The Configuration as Code plugin is installed with version 1.26 or earlier.
-
Identify JCasC configuration files with secretsCheck for JCasC configuration YAML files referenced in Jenkins system configuration or environment variable `CASC_JENKINS_CONFIG`. Look for files containing keywords like `password`, `secret`, `credential`, `token`, `apiKey`, or `privateKey`.Affected if JCasC YAML configuration files contain sensitive fields (passwords, secrets, tokens, credentials) that should be masked.
-
Enable and inspect JCasC plugin logsIn Jenkins, go to Manage Jenkins > System Log > Log Levels, add a logger for `io.jenkins.plugins.configuration_as_code` to FINEST or ALL. Apply configuration changes using JCasC and then review the logs at Manage Jenkins > System Log > All Jenkins Logs.Affected if Logs show plaintext values for fields that should be masked (passwords appear in cleartext rather than asterisks or masked).
If the JCasC plugin version is 1.26 or earlier AND JCasC configuration contains secrets/passwords AND logging is enabled at a level that captures configuration application output, then sensitive values are likely exposed in plaintext in logs.
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 Configuration as Code Plugin to version 1.27 or later to receive the complete fix for proper secret masking in logs.
Fix this in Configuration As Code
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10367 — 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-2019-10367 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