Matrix Authorization StrategyApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2020-2226
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 Matrix Authorization Strategy Plugin 2.6.1 and earlier does not escape user names shown in the configuration, resulting in a stored cross-site scripting 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 confidenceThe Matrix Authorization Strategy Plugin for Jenkins versions 2.6.1 and earlier fails to properly escape user names when rendering them in the plugin's configuration UI. This allows stored malicious scripts to be injected via user names that execute when administrators view the configuration page, resulting in a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability.
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
Matrix Authorization StrategyApplication
<= 2.6.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed Matrix Authorization Strategy Plugin versionNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab, locate 'Matrix Authorization Strategy' in the list, and note the Version column. Alternatively, check the plugin file at $JENKINS_HOME/plugins/matrix-auth/META-INF/MANIFEST.MFAffected if The version listed is 2.6.1 or earlier
-
Verify Matrix Authorization Strategy is enabled as the authorization strategyGo to Manage Jenkins > Configure Global Security and locate the 'Authorization' section. Check if 'Matrix-based Security' or 'Project-based Matrix Authorization Strategy' is selectedAffected if Matrix Authorization Strategy is selected as the authorization method
-
Examine user names in the authorization matrix for script contentIn the Matrix Authorization Strategy configuration (Configure Global Security or project-level configuration), inspect each user listed under 'User/Group' columns. Look for user names containing <script>, javascript:, onload, onerror, or other HTML/script tagsAffected if Any user name entry contains visible HTML tags, script elements, or unusual characters that could represent injected malicious code
You are affected if the Matrix Authorization Strategy Plugin version is 2.6.1 or earlier AND the plugin is actively used for authorization AND any configured user names contain suspicious script content.
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 Matrix Authorization Strategy Plugin to version 2.6.2 or later, which includes proper output encoding of user names to prevent XSS attacks.
Fix this in Matrix Authorization Strategy
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-2226 — 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-2020-2226 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