CVE-2025-47888
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 DingTalk Plugin 2.7.3 and earlier unconditionally disables SSL/TLS certificate and hostname validation for connections to the configured DingTalk webhooks.
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 DingTalk Plugin unconditionally disables SSL/TLS certificate and hostname validation for connections to configured DingTalk webhooks, allowing man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept credentials and messages sent to the webhook endpoint.
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<= 2.7.3CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Check installed DingTalk plugin versionNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Manage Plugins > Installed tab, search for 'DingTalk' and note the version number in the 'Version' columnAffected if Version is 2.7.3 or lower
-
Verify plugin is configured with a webhookNavigate to Jenkins > Manage Jenkins > Configure System > DingTalk section, check if any webhook URLs are configured under the 'Webhooks' or similar configuration areaAffected if A webhook URL is configured (vulnerability only applies when plugin is actively used with DingTalk)
-
Confirm SSL/TLS validation is disabledIf available, inspect the plugin configuration for any 'Trust all certificates' or 'Disable SSL verification' option that is checked/enabled, or examine plugin configuration XML files in JENKINS_HOME if accessibleAffected if SSL/TLS certificate/hostname validation is explicitly disabled or unconditionally bypassed in the configuration
User is affected if Jenkins DingTalk Plugin version 2.7.3 or lower is installed AND the plugin is configured with a DingTalk webhook URL for sending notifications
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 to Jenkins DingTalk Plugin version 2.7.4 or later, which restores proper SSL/TLS certificate and hostname validation for webhook connections.
- 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-2025-47888 — 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-2025-47888 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