CVE-2022-41225VulnerabilityPublished 21 Sep 2022Updated 28 May 2025

CVE-2022-41225: Jenkins Anchore Container Image Scanner Plugin · Cross-site Scripting

Affects Jenkins Anchore Container Image Scanner PluginSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 21 Sep 2022
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Jenkins project Jenkins Anchore Container Image Scanner Plugin	Affected <=1.0.24	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Restrict and secure access to the Anchore engine API to trusted entities only, employing strong authentication and network segmentation to prevent unauthorized manipulation of API responses. 2. Monitor and audit Anchore engine logs and Jenkins plugin interactions for unusual or unexpected API responses that could indicate tampering. 3. Apply the principle of least privilege to Jenkins users and service accounts, limiting who can view or interact with the Anchore plugin UI to reduce exposure to stored XSS payloads. 4. Implement Content Security Policy (CSP) headers in Jenkins to mitigate the impact of XSS by restricting the execution of unauthorized scripts. 5. 6. Consider isolating the Jenkins environment or running the Anchore plugin in a sandboxed context to limit the scope of potential XSS exploitation. 7. Educate Jenkins users about the risks of clicking suspicious links or interacting with untrusted content within the Jenkins UI, as user interaction is required for exploitation. 8. If feasible, temporarily disable or remove the Anchore Container Image Scanner Plugin until a patch is available, especially in high-risk environments.

Description

Jenkins Anchore Container Image Scanner Plugin 1.0.24 and earlier does not escape content provided by the Anchore engine API, resulting in a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exploitable by attackers able to control API responses by Anchore engine.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily in environments where Jenkins is used for CI/CD pipelines and the Anchore Container Image Scanner Plugin is deployed. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary scripts in the context of Jenkins users, potentially leading to credential theft, unauthorized pipeline modifications, or lateral movement within the development infrastructure. Given the critical role of CI/CD in software development and deployment, compromise here could lead to the injection of malicious code into production software, undermining software supply chain integrity. Organizations in sectors with stringent regulatory requirements (e.g., finance, healthcare, critical infrastructure) could face compliance risks if such an attack leads to data breaches or service disruptions. The requirement for attacker control over the Anchore engine API limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially if the Anchore engine is exposed or insufficiently secured. Additionally, the stored XSS nature means that multiple users with access to Jenkins could be affected once the malicious payload is stored, amplifying impact within collaborative teams.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

jenkins.io/security/advisory/2022-09-21/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 08:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats