VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jan 2026Updated 15 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-68698: samrocketman jervis · Weak Cryptography

Affects samrocketman jervisSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High : upgrade to 2.2 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.2

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade jervis and samrocketman/jervis to 2.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
samrocketmanjervis	Affected <2.2	Fixed in 2.2
GitHubsamrocketman/jervis`pkg:github/samrocketman/jervis`Other threats	Affected <2.2	Fixed in 2.2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade Jervis to version 2.2 or later to eliminate the use of vulnerable PKCS1Encoding padding. In addition to patching, organizations should audit all Jenkins pipeline scripts and Job DSL plugins to identify any custom cryptographic implementations that might still use insecure padding schemes. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on Jenkins instances to detect anomalous activities indicative of exploitation attempts. Employ network segmentation to isolate CI/CD infrastructure from sensitive production environments. Consider integrating hardware security modules (HSMs) or dedicated key management services to handle cryptographic operations securely, reducing reliance on software-based encryption vulnerable to padding oracle attacks. Regularly review and update cryptographic libraries and dependencies to ensure compliance with current security standards. Finally, conduct security awareness training for DevOps teams to recognize the importance of cryptographic hygiene and timely patch management within CI/CD pipelines.

Description

Jervis is a library for Job DSL plugin scripts and shared Jenkins pipeline libraries. Prior to 2.2, Jervis uses PKCS1Encoding which is vulnerable to Bleichenbacher padding oracle attacks. Modern systems should use OAEP (Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding). This vulnerability is fixed in 2.2.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-68698 is significant, especially those heavily reliant on Jenkins for CI/CD workflows. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized decryption of sensitive pipeline secrets such as API keys, credentials, or proprietary code artifacts, undermining confidentiality and potentially enabling further lateral movement or supply chain attacks. This risk is amplified in sectors with stringent data protection requirements, including finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. The compromise of build pipelines can disrupt software delivery, cause reputational damage, and lead to regulatory non-compliance under GDPR if personal or sensitive data is exposed. Given Jenkins' widespread adoption in Europe, organizations using Jervis versions prior to 2.2 face a tangible threat vector that could be exploited remotely without authentication or user interaction. The absence of known exploits in the wild does not diminish the urgency, as the vulnerability is well-documented and can be targeted by sophisticated threat actors aiming to infiltrate development environments.

CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption (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 21 Jan 2026, 02:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-327

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats