Violation Comments To GitlabApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2019-10415
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 · uneditedJenkins Violation Comments to GitLab Plugin 2.28 and earlier stored credentials unencrypted in its global configuration file on the Jenkins master where they could be viewed by users with access to the master file system.
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 Violation Comments to GitLab Plugin versions 2.28 and earlier stored GitLab credentials in plaintext within its global configuration file on the Jenkins master filesystem. Any user with access to the Jenkins master file system could read these unencrypted credentials.
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
Violation Comments To GitlabApplication
<= 2.28CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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.
-
Check if Violation Comments to GitLab plugin is installedNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed, or list contents of $JENKINS_HOME/plugins/ directory and look for a folder matching 'violation-comments-to-gitlab' or 'violationcommentstogitlab'Affected if The plugin folder exists in the Jenkins plugins directory
-
Determine the installed plugin versionCheck the manifest file META-INF/MANIFEST.MF inside the plugin folder, or view the plugin details in the Jenkins plugin manager UIAffected if The version is 2.28 or lower
-
Locate the plugin configuration fileLook for a configuration XML file in $JENKINS_HOME/ matching the plugin identifier, typically named similar to 'org.jenkinsci.plugins.violationcommentsToGitLab.xml' or check the main Jenkins configuration XML for nested plugin configAffected if A configuration file exists for this plugin
-
Inspect credentials storage formatOpen the configuration file and examine whether GitLab API tokens, passwords, or usernames appear in plaintext rather than encryptedAffected if Plaintext credentials (unencrypted strings) are present in the configuration file
If the plugin is installed at version 2.28 or earlier and its configuration file contains plaintext credentials, 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 dataUpgrade the Violation Comments to GitLab Plugin to version 2.29 or later, which implements credential encryption. Additionally, audit for any unauthorized access to the Jenkins master filesystem and rotate exposed credentials as a precaution.
Fix this in Violation Comments To Gitlab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10415 — 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-2019-10415 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