Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Премьерзал | Главная |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 193.107.236.54 |
| Country | RU  |
| AS number | AS44128 |
| Net name | Internet Pro LLC |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 8.4p1 Debian 5+deb11u1 |
25/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
80/tcp | https | Golang net/http server - |
443/tcp | https | nginx 1.12.2 |
9999/tcp | http | Portainer Docker UI 1.20.0 or later |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Tiny Slider 2.9.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Yandex.Metrika | Analytics |
| Nginx 1.12.2 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| VK Pixel | Analytics |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Yii | Web frameworks |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVE-2018-16843 | nginx before versions 1.15.6 and 1.14.1 has a vulnerability in the implementation of HTTP/2 that can allow for excessive memory consumption. This issue affects nginx compiled with the ngx_http_v2_module (not compiled by default) if the 'http2' option of the 'listen' directive is used in a configuration file. | nginx 1.12.2 | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2018-16844 | nginx before versions 1.15.6 and 1.14.1 has a vulnerability in the implementation of HTTP/2 that can allow for excessive CPU usage. This issue affects nginx compiled with the ngx_http_v2_module (not compiled by default) if the 'http2' option of the 'listen' directive is used in a configuration file. | nginx 1.12.2 | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2019-9511 | Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. | nginx 1.12.2 | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2019-9513 | Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU. | nginx 1.12.2 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-20005 | NGINX before 1.13.6 has a buffer overflow for years that exceed four digits, as demonstrated by a file with a modification date in 1969 that causes an integer overflow (or a false modification date far in the future), when encountered by the autoindex module. | nginx 1.12.2 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system.
Recommendation
In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai/ | PHPSESSID, _csrf | Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=52589d79a8a1f9e652359c251deb0368 Set-Cookie: _csrf=10850a2f30fb5ab34f2bb3961879c4f35e4382fad32e7c291d2520ab07ffd877a%3A2%3A%7Bi%3A0%3Bs%3A5%3A%22_csrf%22%3Bi%3A1%3Bs%3A32%3A%22xUGgR5JfWGo4Hk_74p-2bxyd-ryVKiRp%22%3B%7D |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application's web server presents an SSL/TLS certificate that is not trusted by web browsers. This issue typically arises when the server uses a self-signed certificate, a certificate from an untrusted authority, or a certificate that has expired or is invalid for other reasons. The lack of a trusted certificate makes it challenging for users to verify the authenticity of the server, undermining the security of the SSL/TLS connection.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could easily mount a man-in-the-middle attack in order to sniff the SSL communication by presenting the user a fake SSL certificate.
Recommendation
We recommend you to configure a trusted SSL certificate for the web server. Examples of how to configure SSL for various servers for Apache and Nginx are referenced.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai/ | 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 |
|---|---|
| https://www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai/ | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.
Risk description
The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.
Recommendation
The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai/ | 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
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai/ | GET | Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 | Suspicious comment BUG found in: |
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application's code contains suspicious comments that may be related to potential bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses. These comments often arise during development and testing phases but are inadvertently left in the code.
Risk description
The risk exists that attackers could analyze these comments to identify vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the application. While comments themselves do not directly lead to security breaches, they may guide attackers to focus their efforts on specific parts of the application, potentially uncovering and exploiting vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Remove comments that suggest the presence of bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses, before deploying the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-209 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A4 - Insecure Design |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai/ | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Tiny Slider 2.9.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Yandex.Metrika | Analytics |
| Nginx 1.12.2 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| VK Pixel | Analytics |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Yii | Web frameworks |
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 |
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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai/ |
|
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
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
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVE-2018-16843 | nginx before versions 1.15.6 and 1.14.1 has a vulnerability in the implementation of HTTP/2 that can allow for excessive memory consumption. This issue affects nginx compiled with the ngx_http_v2_module (not compiled by default) if the 'http2' option of the 'listen' directive is used in a configuration file. | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2018-16844 | nginx before versions 1.15.6 and 1.14.1 has a vulnerability in the implementation of HTTP/2 that can allow for excessive CPU usage. This issue affects nginx compiled with the ngx_http_v2_module (not compiled by default) if the 'http2' option of the 'listen' directive is used in a configuration file. | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2019-9511 | Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2019-9513 | Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-20005 | NGINX before 1.13.6 has a buffer overflow for years that exceed four digits, as demonstrated by a file with a modification date in 1969 that causes an integer overflow (or a false modification date far in the future), when encountered by the autoindex module. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nginx 1.12.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible SSH service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-05-22 20:00 EEST
Nmap scan report for www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai (193.107.236.54)
Host is up (0.071s latency).
rDNS record for 193.107.236.54: vm-dff8618b.na4u.ru
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 8.4p1 Debian 5+deb11u1 (protocol 2.0)
| ssh-auth-methods:
| Supported authentication methods:
| publickey
|_ password
Service Info: OS: Linux; CPE: cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.61 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the SSH service with username/password authentication is publicly accessible. Network administrators often use remote administration protocols to control devices like switches, routers, and other essential systems. However, allowing these services to be accessible via the Internet can increase security risks, creating potential opportunities for attacks on the organization.
Risk description
Exposing this service online with username/password authentication can enable attackers to launch authentication attacks, like guessing login credentials, and potentially gaining unauthorized access. Vulnerabilities, such as unpatched software, protocol flaws, or backdoors could also be exploited. An example is the CVE-2024-3094 (XZ Utils Backdoor) vulnerability.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off SSH with username/password authentication access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the SSH service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, it is advisable to utilize SSH Public Key Authentication since it employs a key pair to verify the identity of a user or process.
Evidence
We managed to detect that nginx has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.12.2 End-of-life date: 2018-04-17 Latest version for the cycle: 1.12.2 This release cycle (1.12) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2017-04-12 and its latest release date was 2017-10-17.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.wwwwwwpnpmyadmin.xn--80aebeq6b0c.xn--p1ai | A | IPv4 address | 193.107.236.54 |
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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 3.10 - 4.11 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Yii | Web frameworks |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Nginx 1.12.2 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Yandex.Metrika | Analytics |
| VK Pixel | Analytics |
| Tiny Slider 2.9.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| cdnjs | CDN |
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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| AngularJS | JavaScript frameworks |
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.