Violation Comments To GitlabApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2019-10416
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 job config.xml files on the Jenkins master where they could be viewed by users with Extended Read permission, or 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 job config.xml files. These unencrypted credentials could be retrieved by users with Extended Read permission via the Jenkins API or by anyone with file system access to the Jenkins master.
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.
-
Verify the Violation Comments to GitLab Plugin is installedGo to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed and look for 'Violation Comments to GitLab' in the list. Note the installed version.Affected if The plugin version is 2.28 or lower.
-
Identify jobs using the Violation Comments to GitLab PluginSearch job config.xml files for the string 'com.dabsquared.gitlabjenkins' or 'gitlab' connection configuration. Alternatively, view each job's configuration and look for the 'Violations to GitLab' post-build action.Affected if Any job is configured to use this plugin.
-
Inspect job config.xml files for plaintext GitLab credentialsLocate config.xml files in $JENKINS_HOME/jobs/<jobname>/config.xml for each job using the plugin. Open the files and search for GitLab-related elements (such as 'gitlabApiToken', 'gitlabToken', or similar credential fields).Affected if The credential fields contain unencrypted plaintext values rather than <secret> encrypted elements.
-
Check for credential exposure via Jenkins APIVerify if any users or groups have Extended Read permission. Go to Manage Jenkins > Manage Users and check job-level permissions. Users with Extended Read can read config.xml via the API endpoint: /job/<jobname>/config.xmlAffected if Extended Read permission is granted to users who should not have full administrative access.
You are affected if the Violation Comments to GitLab Plugin version 2.28 or lower is installed, any jobs use it, and plaintext GitLab credentials appear in job config.xml files.
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 a version after 2.28 which encrypts credentials. Additionally, rotate all GitLab credentials that may have been exposed, as they remain in older config.xml files even after the upgrade.
Fix this in Violation Comments To Gitlab
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-10416 — 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-2019-10416 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