Skip to content

GHSA-3vhr-f5xr-8vpx CVE-2015-7537

Jenkins Vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) Attack

High Maven
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.0
Exploit chance (EPSS)
2.40%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 84.00% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
1.640
Upgrade org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core to this version or later

Description

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins before 1.640 and LTS before 1.625.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that have unspecified impact via vectors related to the HTTP GET method.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
>= 1.626, < 1.640
1.640
org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
< 1.625.2
1.625.2

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core Maven → 1.640

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.jenkins-ci.main</groupId><artifactId>jenkins-core</artifactId><version>1.640</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core:1.640")

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.0 8.8

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Weakness

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
  • Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
  • Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
  • Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
  • Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
  • Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.

References

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-6f9g-cxwr-q5jr
Arbitrary file read vulnerability through the Jenkins CLI can lead to RCE
Critical Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-8pqx-3rxx-f5pm
Jenkins discloses project names via fingerprints
High Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-26wc-3wqp-g3rp
Deserialization of Untrusted Data in Jenkins
Critical Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
CVE-2018-1000861
Deserialization of Untrusted Data in Jenkins
Critical Known exploited Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-m6wv-wh8g-64xc
Jenkins does not encrypt secrets from POST config.xml submissions before storing them in job configurations
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-93qh-vwrm-c5pw
Jenkins: Stored XSS vulnerability in node offline cause description
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-92m7-4fpw-2wxm
Jenkins: Open Redirect phishing attacks possible via "from" parameter in "Delegate to servlet container"
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
GHSA-g28p-6mcc-v4rv
Jenkins exposes other users' timezone and view names to users with Overall/Read permission
Medium Also affects org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor