Soapui Pro Functional TestingApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2020-2250
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 SoapUI Pro Functional Testing Plugin 1.3 and earlier stores project passwords unencrypted in job config.xml files on the Jenkins controller where they can be viewed by attackers with Extended Read permission, or access to the Jenkins controller 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 SoapUI Pro Functional Testing Plugin versions 1.3 and earlier stores project passwords in plaintext within job config.xml files. Attackers with Extended Read permission on Jenkins or filesystem access to the controller can directly view 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
Soapui Pro Functional TestingApplication
<= 1.3CVSS 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 SoapUI Pro Functional Testing Plugin is installedIn Jenkins, go to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed and look for 'SoapUI Pro Functional Testing' in the list. Alternatively, check the plugin directory (typically $JENKINS_HOME/plugins/) for the plugin folder.Affected if The plugin is present in Jenkins
-
Determine the installed plugin versionIn Jenkins plugin manager, find the SoapUI Pro Functional Testing entry and note the version number displayed. Compare this version to the affected range: versions 1.3 and earlier are vulnerable.Affected if The plugin version is 1.3 or earlier
-
Identify jobs using the SoapUI Pro pluginSearch job config.xml files in $JENKINS_HOME/jobs/ for references to 'soapui-pro' or 'SoapUI Pro' functionality, or look for relevant build steps associated with the plugin.Affected if Jobs reference or use SoapUI Pro functionality
-
Inspect job config.xml files for plaintext passwordsExamine the config.xml files of jobs using SoapUI Pro for any plaintext password fields. Look for password-type parameters that appear as readable text rather than encrypted or masked values.Affected if Plaintext password strings are visible in the config.xml files of jobs using the plugin
The environment is affected if the SoapUI Pro Functional Testing Plugin version is 1.3 or earlier AND plaintext passwords are found 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 SoapUI Pro Functional Testing Plugin to a version that encrypts stored passwords, and rotate any passwords that may have been exposed in existing config.xml files.
Fix this in Soapui Pro Functional Testing
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-2250 — 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-2020-2250 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