Stack HammerApplication · Jenkins
CVE-2025-31726
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 Stack Hammer Plugin 1.0.6 and earlier stores Stack Hammer API keys unencrypted in job config.xml files on the Jenkins controller where they can be viewed by users 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 Stack Hammer Plugin versions 1.0.6 and earlier stores Stack Hammer API keys in plaintext (unencrypted) within job config.xml files on the Jenkins controller. Users with Extended Read permission on jobs or filesystem-level access to the Jenkins controller can view these plaintext API keys.
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
Stack HammerApplication
<= 1.0.6CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 Stack Hammer Plugin is installedGo to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab and search for 'Stack Hammer' in the list of installed plugins, or use the Jenkins CLI: java -jar jenkins-cli.jar list-plugins 2>/dev/null | grep -i 'stack-hammer'Affected if Stack Hammer Plugin appears in the installed plugins list with version 1.0.6 or earlier
-
Check for configured API keys in job config.xmlNavigate to JENKINS_HOME/jobs/JOBNAME/config.xml for each job that uses the Stack Hammer plugin, or use the Jenkins UI: go to Job > Configure and look for Stack Hammer API key fieldsAffected if config.xml files contain plaintext (unencrypted) API key values in Stack Hammer configuration sections
-
Identify jobs using Stack Hammer pluginSearch job config.xml files for '<stackHammer>' or 'StackHammer' configuration blocks: grep -r 'stackHammer\|StackHammer' JENKINS_HOME/jobs/*/config.xmlAffected if Any job config.xml files contain Stack Hammer configuration blocks with API key values that are stored in cleartext rather than encrypted credential markers
A user is affected if they have Stack Hammer Plugin version 1.0.6 or earlier installed AND have configured the plugin with API keys in any job's configuration, as these credentials are stored in plaintext within 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 Stack Hammer Plugin to a version that encrypts stored credentials, and rotate any API keys that may have been exposed through this vulnerability.
Fix this in Stack Hammer
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-31726 — 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-2025-31726 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