IcescrumApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2024-28160
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 iceScrum Plugin 1.1.6 and earlier does not sanitize iceScrum project URLs on build views, resulting in a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exploitable by attackers able to configure jobs.
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 iceScrum Plugin versions 1.1.6 and earlier contains a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability where iceScrum project URLs rendered on build views are not sanitized. Attackers with job configuration permissions can embed malicious JavaScript in the URL, which executes when other users view the build page.
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
IcescrumApplication
<= 1.1.6CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 iceScrum plugin is installedNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab and search for 'iceScrum' or check the plugin directory $JENKINS_HOME/plugins for icescrum* filesAffected if The iceScrum plugin is present in the plugins directory or listed in installed plugins
-
Identify installed iceScrum versionIn Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed, find the iceScrum plugin and note the version number displayedAffected if The installed version is 1.1.6 or any version lower (e.g., 1.1.5, 1.1.0, etc.)
-
Check for jobs using iceScrum integrationSearch job configurations for 'iceScrum' or 'icescrum' related fields, particularly project URL settings under the iceScrum plugin configuration section in job config.xml files or via Jenkins UI at each job's configuration pageAffected if Jobs contain iceScrum project URL configuration pointing to an iceScrum server
-
Review job configuration permissionsNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Users and check which users have Job/Configure permission, or review Matrix Authorization Strategy if configuredAffected if Users with Job/Configure permissions include untrusted or non-admin accounts that could inject malicious URLs
You are affected if the iceScrum plugin version is 1.1.6 or earlier AND jobs are configured with iceScrum project URLs AND untrusted users have job configuration permissions.
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 iceScrum Plugin to the latest version following the Jenkins security advisory. If upgrade is not immediately possible, restrict job configuration permissions to trusted users only until the patch can be applied.
Fix this in Icescrum
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-28160 — 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-2024-28160 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