Radiator ViewApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2020-2263
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 Radiator View Plugin 1.29 and earlier does not escape the full name of the jobs in tooltips, resulting in a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exploitable by attackers with Job/Configure permission.
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 Radiator View Plugin versions 1.29 and earlier fails to properly escape job full names when rendering them in tooltips. An attacker with Job/Configure permission can inject malicious JavaScript code into a job's full name, which executes in the browsers of other users viewing the Radiator View.
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
Radiator ViewApplication
<= 1.29CVSS 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 Radiator View plugin is installedNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab and search for 'Radiator View' in the list of installed plugins, or inspect the plugin directory on the Jenkins controller filesystemAffected if If the Radiator View plugin appears in the installed plugins list
-
Determine the installed versionIn the plugin manager, note the version number displayed next to Radiator View, or check the plugin's MANIFEST.MF file in the plugin's directory under $JENKINS_HOME/plugins/Affected if If the version is 1.29 or earlier (the vulnerable version range)
-
Check if Radiator View is actively displayedNavigate to the Jenkins main dashboard and look for any Radiator View views, or list the configured views via the Jenkins API at /api/json?tree=views[name]Affected if If any Radiator View is configured and rendered on the dashboard
-
Inspect job full names for injected contentUse the Jenkins API to retrieve job details: /api/json?tree=jobs[fullName] or manually review job configurations via the UI at each job's configuration page, examining the 'Full Name' fieldAffected if If any job's full name contains script tags, JavaScript event handlers, or other suspicious patterns (less-than sign, script keyword, onload/onerror handlers)
A user is affected if Radiator View plugin version 1.29 or earlier is installed, a Radiator View is actively displayed, and a job exists with a full name containing malicious script content that would execute in victims' browsers.
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 Radiator View Plugin to version 1.30 or later which properly escapes job names in tooltips. Until then, limit Job/Configure permission to trusted users only.
Fix this in Radiator View
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-2263 — 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-2020-2263 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