VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jul 2025Updated 4 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-53662: Jenkins IFTTT Build Notifier Plugin · CWE-256

Affects Jenkins IFTTT Build Notifier PluginSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 9 Jul 2025
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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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 IFTTT Build Notifier Plugin	Affected =0 <=1.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should first restrict Jenkins Item and Extended Read permissions strictly to trusted users, minimizing exposure of job configuration files. Implementing strict file system access controls on the Jenkins controller server is critical to prevent unauthorized direct access to config.xml files. Organizations should audit existing Jenkins jobs to identify and remove or rotate exposed IFTTT Maker Channel Keys. Employ Jenkins security best practices such as enabling Role-Based Access Control (RBAC), using credential plugins that securely store secrets, and monitoring Jenkins logs for suspicious access patterns. Regularly review and update Jenkins and plugin versions to incorporate security fixes. Additionally, consider network segmentation to isolate Jenkins controllers from broader enterprise networks to limit attack surface. Finally, educate Jenkins administrators and users about the risks of storing sensitive credentials in job configurations.

Description

Jenkins IFTTT Build Notifier Plugin 1.2 and earlier stores IFTTT Maker Channel Keys unencrypted in job config.xml files on the Jenkins controller, where they can be viewed by users with Item/Extended Read permission or access to the Jenkins controller file system.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the confidentiality of sensitive credentials used for automation workflows. If an attacker or unauthorized insider gains access to the Jenkins controller or has sufficient Jenkins permissions, they can extract IFTTT Maker Channel Keys and misuse them to trigger unauthorized actions or leak information through automated channels. This could lead to indirect data exposure, disruption of automated processes, or reputational damage if automation triggers unintended external actions. Organizations relying on Jenkins for continuous integration and deployment, especially those integrating with IFTTT for notifications or automation, may face increased risk of lateral movement or escalation if these keys are leveraged maliciously. The impact is heightened in environments with multiple users having read access to Jenkins jobs or where file system access controls are weak. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach can facilitate further attacks or data leaks. European entities in sectors with strict data protection regulations (e.g., finance, healthcare) must consider the compliance implications of such credential exposures.

CWE-256Plaintext Storage of a Password (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores a password in plaintext within resources such as memory or files.
Architecture and Design
Avoid storing passwords in easily accessible locations.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing cryptographic hashes of passwords as an alternative to storing in plaintext.
A programmer might attempt to remedy the password management problem by obscuring the password with an encoding function, such as base 64 encoding, but this effort does not adequately protect the password because the encoding can be detected and decoded easily.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.7.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 21:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-256

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats