JenkinsApplication
CVE-2020-2162
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 2.227 and earlier, LTS 2.204.5 and earlier does not set Content-Security-Policy headers for files uploaded as file parameters to a build, resulting in a stored XSS vulnerability.
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 versions 2.227 and earlier, LTS 2.204.5 and earlier fail to set Content-Security-Policy headers on responses serving files uploaded as file parameters to builds. This allows uploaded files to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the browser context, resulting in a stored XSS vulnerability where malicious scripts persist and execute when other users view or interact with the uploaded files.
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
JenkinsApplication
<= 2.204.5<= 2.227CVSS 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.
-
Check installed Jenkins versionNavigate to Manage Jenkins > About Jenkins or run 'java -jar jenkins.war --version' to determine the exact version numberAffected if Version is 2.204.5 or earlier (LTS) OR 2.227 or earlier (weekly)
-
Identify builds using file parametersReview Jenkins job configurations for jobs that use the 'File Parameter' build step or accept file parameters via the APIAffected if Any active or recent jobs are configured to accept file parameters as input
-
Inspect Content-Security-Policy header on file parameter responsesUpload a test file as a file parameter to a build, then use browser developer tools or curl to inspect the HTTP response headers when accessing the uploaded file (typically under $JENKINS_HOME/jobs/<jobname>/builds/<buildnumber>/artifact/)Affected if The response lacks a Content-Security-Policy header or contains an overly permissive policy (e.g., 'unsafe-inline' or 'unsafe-eval')
-
Verify if uploaded files are accessible via web UINavigate to the build artifact directory through the Jenkins web interface and confirm uploaded file parameters are reachableAffected if Uploaded files can be accessed through the web UI without restrictive CSP headers
A user is affected if their Jenkins version is 2.204.5 or earlier (LTS) or 2.227 or earlier AND they have jobs using file parameters where uploaded files are served without Content-Security-Policy headers.
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 dataConfigure Jenkins to serve file parameter responses with restrictive Content-Security-Policy headers, or upgrade to Jenkins 2.228/LTS 2.204.6 or later which includes the security fix.
Fix this in Jenkins
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-2162 — 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-2020-2162 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