CVE-2025-68931VulnerabilityPublished 13 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-68931: samrocketman jervis · Improper Authentication

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, 08:30 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 9% 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:N/VI:H/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: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 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

1. Upgrade all instances of the jervis library to version 2.2 or later immediately to apply the fix that adds proper authentication to the encryption process. 2. 3. Replace AES/CBC/PKCS5Padding encryption with authenticated encryption modes such as AES-GCM or AES-CCM if custom encryption is implemented outside of jervis. 4. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on Jenkins environments to detect unusual pipeline activity or unauthorized access attempts. 5. Review and rotate any secrets or credentials that may have been encrypted with vulnerable jervis versions to prevent misuse if data was compromised. 6. Educate DevOps and security teams about the risks of improper cryptographic practices and encourage use of vetted libraries with authenticated encryption. 7. Consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) or endpoint detection tools to identify exploitation attempts targeting Jenkins pipelines. 8. Maintain an inventory of all Jenkins plugins and libraries to ensure timely updates and vulnerability management.

Description

CVE-2025-68931 is a high-severity vulnerability affecting versions of the samrocketman jervis library prior to 2.2. The issue arises from the use of AES encryption in CBC mode with PKCS5 padding without proper authentication, making it vulnerable to padding oracle attacks and ciphertext manipulation. This improper authentication flaw (CWE-287) combined with weak cryptographic usage (CWE-327) allows attackers to decrypt or alter encrypted data without authorization. The vulnerability requires no authentication or user interaction and can be exploited remotely, posing a significant risk to confidentiality and integrity. The flaw is fixed in version 2.2 of jervis. European organizations using Jenkins pipelines or Job DSL scripts that incorporate jervis versions before 2.2 could face data compromise or pipeline manipulation. Mitigation involves upgrading to jervis 2.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability threatens the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data processed within Jenkins pipelines that utilize the jervis library for encryption. Attackers could decrypt encrypted secrets, credentials, or configuration data, leading to unauthorized access to critical systems or intellectual property. Manipulation of encrypted data could result in pipeline sabotage, causing incorrect builds, deployments, or exposure of internal processes. This risk is particularly acute for industries relying heavily on CI/CD automation, such as finance, manufacturing, and technology sectors prevalent in Europe. The lack of authentication and ease of remote exploitation means attackers can leverage this vulnerability without insider access or user interaction, increasing the attack surface. If exploited, it could lead to significant operational disruption, data breaches, and compliance violations under regulations like GDPR. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the public disclosure increases the risk of future exploitation attempts.

CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
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, 02:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-287, CWE-327

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats