CVE-2022-41231VulnerabilityPublished 21 Sep 2022Updated 28 May 2025

CVE-2022-41231: Jenkins Build-Publisher Plugin · Path Traversal

Affects Jenkins Build-Publisher PluginSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 1.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 73% 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:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 Build-Publisher Plugin	Affected <=1.22	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should take the following specific actions to mitigate this vulnerability: 1) Immediately audit Jenkins instances to identify usage of the Build-Publisher Plugin version 1.22 or earlier. 3) Restrict Item/Configure permissions strictly to trusted personnel and enforce the principle of least privilege to reduce the number of users who can exploit this vulnerability. 4) Implement strong authentication and session management controls to prevent unauthorized access to Jenkins accounts. 5) Monitor Jenkins logs and API usage for suspicious activity, particularly unusual file write operations targeting config.xml files. 6) Consider isolating Jenkins controllers and limiting network exposure to reduce the risk of remote exploitation. 7) Use configuration management and version control for Jenkins job configurations to detect unauthorized changes promptly. 8) Educate Jenkins users about the risks of social engineering or phishing that could lead to user interaction exploitation. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control tightening, monitoring, and configuration management specific to Jenkins environments.

Description

Jenkins Build-Publisher Plugin 1.22 and earlier allows attackers with Item/Configure permission to create or replace any config.xml file on the Jenkins controller file system by providing a crafted file name to an API endpoint.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of their CI/CD pipelines managed through Jenkins. Many enterprises and public sector organizations in Europe rely on Jenkins for software development and deployment automation. An attacker with Item/Configure permissions—often developers or build managers—could exploit this flaw to alter job configurations maliciously, inject malicious build steps, or disrupt automated workflows. This could lead to compromised software builds, introduction of backdoors, or sabotage of production deployments. While the vulnerability does not directly impact confidentiality or availability, the integrity breach can have downstream effects such as deploying compromised software to production environments, which can lead to data breaches or service disruptions. Given the reliance on automated pipelines in sectors like finance, manufacturing, and government, the threat could undermine operational security and compliance with regulations such as GDPR if malicious code is introduced. The requirement for existing permissions and user interaction limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with large teams or insufficient access controls.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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, 08:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats