Vrealize OrchestratorApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2022-34212
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 · uneditedA missing permission check in Jenkins vRealize Orchestrator Plugin 3.0 and earlier allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to send an HTTP POST request to an attacker-specified URL.
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 confidenceMissing permission check in Jenkins vRealize Orchestrator Plugin 3.0 and earlier allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to send HTTP POST requests to arbitrary URLs. This is a broken access control vulnerability combined with server-side request forgery (SSRF) where the plugin does not verify if the requesting user has proper permissions before allowing the HTTP request to be initiated.
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
Vrealize OrchestratorApplication
<= 3.0CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 vRealize Orchestrator plugin is installedNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed and search for 'vRealize Orchestrator' or 'vRO' in the list of installed pluginsAffected if The plugin appears in the installed plugins list
-
Identify installed plugin versionIn the installed plugins list, locate the vRealize Orchestrator plugin and note the version number displayed in the Version columnAffected if Version is 3.0 or earlier (e.g., 3.0, 2.x, 1.x)
-
Confirm HTTP request endpoint is accessibleCheck if the plugin exposes an HTTP endpoint (typically at /plugin/vRealize-Orchestrator/ or similar path under Jenkins root). Attempt a test HTTP POST request to an internal service to verify functionality is enabledAffected if The endpoint responds and accepts POST requests without additional permission challenges
-
Review Overall/Read permission assignmentsNavigate to Manage Jenkins > Manage Users and/or Jenkins > Manage and Assign Roles to see which users or groups have Overall/Read permissionAffected if Multiple users or unauthenticated users have Overall/Read permission enabled
User is affected if vRealize Orchestrator plugin version is 3.0 or earlier AND the plugin HTTP endpoint is accessible to users with Overall/Read permission.
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 vRealize Orchestrator Plugin to version 3.1 or later which includes the missing permission check. As a compensating control, restrict Overall/Read permission to only necessary users.
Fix this in Vrealize Orchestrator
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-34212 — 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-2022-34212 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