Mission ControlApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2019-16563
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 Mission Control Plugin 0.9.16 and earlier does not escape job display names and build names shown on its view, resulting in a stored XSS vulnerability exploitable by attackers able to change these properties.
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 Mission Control Plugin versions 0.9.16 and earlier fails to properly escape HTML/script content in job display names and build names when rendering them in the plugin's view. This allows attackers with the ability to modify job properties to inject malicious JavaScript code that executes in the browsers of users viewing the Mission Control dashboard.
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
Mission ControlApplication
<= 0.9.16CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 Jenkins Mission Control Plugin is installedNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab and search for 'Mission Control' or check the plugin directory $JENKINS_HOME/plugins for mission-control/Affected if The plugin is listed as installed
-
Check the installed plugin versionIn the Installed Plugins tab, find Mission Control and note the Version column, or examine $JENKINS_HOME/plugins/mission-control/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF for the Plugin-VersionAffected if Version is 0.9.16 or earlier
-
Identify users with job configuration permissionsNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Users and review who has Overall/Administer or Job/Configure permissions, or check $JENKINS_HOME/config.xml for authorization settingsAffected if Any user other than administrators can modify job names or descriptions
-
Inspect job names and build names for malicious contentReview job configurations (Job > Configure > General) and recent build history for unexpected HTML, script tags, or JavaScript URLs in display namesAffected if Job names, display names, or build names contain unescaped HTML like <script>, javascript:, or event handlers like onload/onerror
You are affected if the Mission Control Plugin version is 0.9.16 or earlier AND any user with Job/Configure permission exists in your Jenkins instance.
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 Jenkins Mission Control Plugin to version 0.9.17 or later, which includes proper output encoding. If immediate patching is not possible, restrict and audit permissions for users able to modify job names and descriptions.
Fix this in Mission Control
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-16563 — 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-2019-16563 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