Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://nat-ka.livejournal.com/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/

Submitted: May 21, 2025 from TJ

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

medium

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	Мысли вслух — LiveJournal
Description:	nat_ka - the new blog in LiveJournal. There should be new interesting records soon.

IP Information

IP address	81.19.74.0
Country	RU
AS number	AS24638
Net name	Rambler Internet Holding LLC

IP address	81.19.74.1
Country	RU
AS number	AS24638
Net name	Rambler Internet Holding LLC

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	nginx -
443/tcp	https	nginx -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Marko	Web frameworks, UI frameworks
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Node.js	Programming languages
VK Pixel	Analytics
reCAPTCHA	Security
LiveJournal	Blogs
Varnish	Caching

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/	luid	The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: luid=URNKAGguLrSzaV2dJ3ZZAgB=

Vulnerability description

We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.

Recommendation

Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1004
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/	luid	Set-Cookie: .livejournal.com

Vulnerability description

We found that the target application sets cookies with a domain scope that is too broad. Specifically, cookies intended for use within a particular application are configured in such a way that they can be accessed by multiple subdomains of the same primary domain.

Risk description

The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com, hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from the main site.

Recommendation

The `Domain` attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to `Domain=app.mysite.com`

Classification

CWE	CWE-614
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/	Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.

Risk description

The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).

Recommendation

The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. object-src: We recommend restricting object-src to 'none' only. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. report-uri: report-uri is deprecated in CSP3. Please use the report-to directive instead. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files.

https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. object-src: We recommend restricting object-src to 'none' only. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. report-uri: report-uri is deprecated in CSP3. Please use the report-to directive instead. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.

Risk description

For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.

Recommendation

Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/	Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.

Risk description

The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.

Recommendation

We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Marko	Web frameworks, UI frameworks
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Node.js	Programming languages
VK Pixel	Analytics
reCAPTCHA	Security
LiveJournal	Blogs
Varnish	Caching

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL
https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/robots.txt

Vulnerability description

We found the robots.txt on the target server. This file instructs web crawlers what URLs and endpoints of the web application they can visit and crawl. Website administrators often misuse this file while attempting to hide some web pages from the users.

Risk description

There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.

Recommendation

We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website (ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/	<input autocorrect="off" class="b-loginform-field__input b-loginform-field__input--user" id="user" maxlength="17" name="user" ng-init="loginForm.model.username=null" ng-model="loginForm.model.username" placeholder="Username" size="18" tabindex="10" type="text" value=""/> <input class="b-loginform-field__input b-loginform-field__input--pass js--loginform-field-pass" id="lj_loginwidget_password" maxlength="30" name="password" ng-init="loginForm.model.password=null" ng-model="loginForm.model.password" placeholder="Password" size="20" tabindex="11" type="password"/> <button class="b-loginform-field__toggle-password js--loginform-toggle-pass" tabindex="12" type="button"> <svg class="svgicon flaticons-v2 flaticons-v2--eye" height="16" width="16" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <use xlink:href="#flaticons-v2--eye"></use> </svg> <svg class="svgicon flaticons-v2 flaticons-v2--eye-disabled" height="16" width="16" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> <use xlink:href="#flaticons-v2--eye-disabled"></use> </svg> </button>

https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/

Vulnerability description

We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.

Recommendation

Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://nat-ka.livejournal.com/.well-known/security.txt

Vulnerability description

We have noticed that the server is missing the security.txt file, which is considered a good practice for web security. It provides a standardized way for security researchers and the public to report security vulnerabilities or concerns by outlining the preferred method of contact and reporting procedures.

Risk description

There is no particular risk in not having a security.txt file for your server. However, this file is important because it offers a designated channel for reporting vulnerabilities and security issues.

Recommendation

We recommend you to implement the security.txt file according to the standard, in order to allow researchers or users report any security issues they find, improving the defensive mechanisms of your server.

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
nat-ka.livejournal.com	A	IPv4 address	81.19.74.1
nat-ka.livejournal.com	A	IPv4 address	81.19.74.0
nat-ka.livejournal.com	NS	Name server	ns2.rambler.ru
nat-ka.livejournal.com	NS	Name server	ns5.rambler.ru
nat-ka.livejournal.com	NS	Name server	ns4.rambler.ru
nat-ka.livejournal.com	NS	Name server	ns3.rambler.ru
nat-ka.livejournal.com	MX	Mail server	10 mail.livejournal.com
nat-ka.livejournal.com	SOA	Start of Authority	nscarp1.rambler.ru. webmaster.livejournal.com. 2025041801 3600 600 604800 600
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"mailru-verification: feb6a343d2364125"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=awx1FbEZ5jPCrDpdjUKWHaV-C3am6EvbLSNvpMbw158"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"pinterest-site-verification=7cbedf8b1c1f0359c369e8c164518306"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"_globalsign-domain-verification=P7vynYgzeGlTSFNmmCBmgNeyu0unZOkydPRn1apam_"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=W-uhhNc0pBVo-6mqlVLFlcvn3PGgaFZ-34HrSbQsXyA"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"yandex-verification: 665ecaec263167db"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=glecFAHxpWw1tMrQDAXPVFGajV47ZKg-nrMdjIJU7WI"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=xfubMhw9dP3hzq4luAKmMTpLUD4vfkJj5zwRYycEWkw"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"202202040808534a46fzt7ykgzgpiowim1m10aa98elk1rgd3ozc9i6t04xkx53j"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=VKji3gXcdrpxxISo8SKC0CTIPjnpTLmXB3m5PzWMf4s"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"_globalsign-domain-verification=Sp9nROoH2HO_UR2sSnxhZlpQUhVFShSsK9rnKoogS_"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"_globalsign-domain-verification=rtXKyuEEqbGO7ulwJJXIjIJAtWolavpbYhQgkXrABb"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=SxPKdBgk_M6gqbXW1158xM4JoLPczY4WS7UHLxCpCSoa"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 mx ip4:81.19.74.0/24 -all"
nat-ka.livejournal.com	CNAME	Canonical name	livejournal.com

Risk description

An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.

Recommendation

We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.

Operating System	Accuracy
Linux 3.2 - 3.8	92%

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
LiveJournal	Blogs
Node.js	Programming languages
Marko	Web frameworks, UI frameworks
Varnish	Caching
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
React	JavaScript frameworks
AngularJS	JavaScript frameworks
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
Funding Choices	Cookie compliance
comScore	Analytics
reCAPTCHA	Security
VK Pixel	Analytics

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.