CVE-2019-17444: JFrog Artifactory does not enforce default admin password change
Noroxi assessment
Priority: This week (action score 60/100)
- A ready-made attack module is public (Nuclei); exploiting it takes no special expertise.
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (Exploit-DB / GitHub); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 69.4% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 99.3% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Don’t wait for the next maintenance window. Until a fix is released, restrict access to the affected component and follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Jfrog Artifactory uses default passwords (such as "password") for administrative accounts and does not require users to change them. This may allow unauthorized network-based attackers to completely compromise of Jfrog Artifactory. This issue affects Jfrog Artifactory versions prior to 6.17.0.
- Published
- Oct 12, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 69.4% · 99th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-521
Report tools
Action score
60
This week
Don’t wait for the next maintenance window.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 21 / 30 · 69.4%
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.8
- CNA · palo_alto
- 9.8
- agree
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| jfrog | artifactory | cpe:2.3:a:jfrog:artifactory |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- jfrog artifactorybefore 6.17.0
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (palo_alto). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
Jfrog Artifactory
- 7.xnot affected
- all and later · before 6.17.0affected
Same product
jfrog: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2026-82329Potential authentication bypass leading to administrative access in ArtifactoryKEV73This week
- CVE-2026-42016Incorrect authorization validation of user token in JFrog Artifactory allows Privilege EscalationKEV68This week
- CVE-2026-42018Anonymous user token generation exposure in JFrog ArtifactoryKEV63This week
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-2164Mar 25, 2020 · Jenkins Artifactory Plugin 3.5.0 and earlier stores its Artifactory server password unencrypted in its global configuration file on the Jenk26Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2020-2165Mar 25, 2020 · Jenkins Artifactory Plugin 3.6.0 and earlier transmits configured passwords in plain text as part of its global Jenkins configuration form, 30Monitor
- Later →CVE-2021-3860Dec 20, 2021 · JFrog Artifactory before 7.25.4 (Enterprise+ deployments only), is vulnerable to Blind SQL Injection by a low privileged authenticated user 35Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Nuclei detection template ×1
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Nuclei detection template | Nuclei template CVE-2019-17444 | — |
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
- Daniel ShapiraPalo Alto Networks.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-521 · Weak Password RequirementsCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Brute ForceCAPEC-112High
- Dictionary-based Password AttackCAPEC-16likelihood: Medium · High
- Password Brute ForcingCAPEC-49likelihood: Medium · High
- KerberoastingCAPEC-509High
- Rainbow Table Password CrackingCAPEC-55likelihood: Medium · Medium
- Remote Services with Stolen CredentialsCAPEC-555Very High
- Windows Admin Shares with Stolen CredentialsCAPEC-561
- Password SprayingCAPEC-565likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
- Remote ServicesT1021
- Remote Services:SMB/Windows Admin SharesT1021.002
- Valid Accounts:Default AccountsT1078.001
- Brute ForceT1110
- Brute Force:Password GuessingT1110.001
- Brute Force:Password CrackingT1110.002
- Brute Force:Password SprayingT1110.003
- Email Collection:Remote Email CollectionT1114.002
- External Remote ServicesT1133
- Steal or Forge Kerberos Tickets:KerberoastingT1558.003
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.