RecipeApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2022-34794
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 · uneditedMissing permission checks in Jenkins Recipe Plugin 1.2 and earlier allow attackers with Overall/Read permission to send an HTTP request to an attacker-specified URL and parse the response as XML.
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 Recipe Plugin versions 1.2 and earlier lack permission checks on certain API endpoints. Attackers with only Overall/Read permission (the most basic Jenkins access) can instruct the server to send HTTP requests to attacker-specified URLs and parse the returned XML response. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability combined with insufficient authorization.
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
RecipeApplication
<= 1.2CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Confirm Jenkins Recipe Plugin is installedNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins. Click on the 'Installed' tab and search for 'Recipe' in the filter, or check the 'Jenkins Recipe' plugin entry in the list.Affected if The plugin named 'Jenkins Recipe' or 'Recipe' appears in the installed plugins list.
-
Locate the installed plugin versionIn the Manage Plugins > Installed tab, find the Jenkins Recipe plugin entry. The Version column displays the currently installed version number.Affected if The version shown is 1.2 or lower (for example: 1.2, 1.1, 1.0, or any version number less than 1.3).
-
Verify API endpoint accessibilityIf the plugin exposes API endpoints (typically under /recipe/ or similar path), check whether unauthenticated or low-privileged users with Overall/Read permission can access endpoints that trigger HTTP requests. Review the plugin documentation or test access using a test user account with only Overall/Read permission.Affected if A user with only Overall/Read permission can trigger the plugin to make outbound HTTP requests to arbitrary URLs.
Your environment is affected if the Jenkins Recipe Plugin is installed at version 1.2 or earlier, allowing any user with basic Overall/Read permission to trigger server-side HTTP requests to attacker-controlled URLs.
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 Jenkins Recipe Plugin to version 1.3 or later, which contains proper permission checks. If upgrading is not immediately possible, review which users have Overall/Read permission and restrict access to trusted personnel only.
Fix this in Recipe
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-34794 — 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-2022-34794 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