CVE-2024-23903
Jenkins Github Branch Source ≤ 684.vea_fa_7c1e2fe3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-23903 is a medium-severity Incorrect Comparison (CWE-697) vulnerability in Jenkins Github Branch Source. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027); ranked at the 40th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-0341
Vulnerability Data
Jenkins GitLab Branch Source Plugin 684.vea_fa_7c1e2fe3 and earlier uses a non-constant time comparison function when checking whether the provided and expected webhook token are equal, potentially allowing attackers to use statistical methods to obtain a valid webhook token.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly exercises security-relevant comparisons to discover incorrect logic.
A reference monitor must be small and correct, structurally limiting the chance of flawed comparison logic in authorization decisions.
Security engineering principles require correct implementation of comparison logic used for access and authentication decisions.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development practices directly require correct logic for security comparisons and thereby prevent this class of flaw.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect incorrect comparison flaws before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes code review and testing that can catch incorrect comparison logic.
Application security requirements can mandate correct comparison logic for security decisions.
Secure architecture principles can require robust comparison mechanisms for access decisions.
Secure coding standards directly address avoiding incorrect comparison operators and logic.
Secure authentication mechanisms rely on correct comparison of credentials or tokens.