Vulnerability Scan Result

ip_address | 13.56.101.124 |
country | US ![]() |
network_name | Amazon Inc |
asn | AS16509 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Tippy.js | JavaScript libraries |
Django | Web frameworks |
Font Awesome | Font scripts |
Bootstrap 4.6.2 | UI frameworks |
core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Python | Programming languages |
Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
Sentry | Issue trackers |
Elasticsearch | Search engines |
Elastic APM | Analytics, Issue trackers, RUM |
HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
---|---|---|
https://lx.sn-app-18389-concurrency-limit.review.polly.io/accounts/login/ | next_url | Set-Cookie: next_url="/" |
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 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
---|---|---|
https://lx.sn-app-18389-concurrency-limit.review.polly.io/accounts/login/ | next_url, csrftoken | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: next_url="/" Set-Cookie: csrftoken=JtzXsfHWadV6jO7KwG0Pdzgl7H0zPle5 |
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 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Tippy.js | JavaScript libraries |
Django | Web frameworks |
Font Awesome | Font scripts |
Bootstrap 4.6.2 | UI frameworks |
core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Python | Programming languages |
Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
Sentry | Issue trackers |
Elasticsearch | Search engines |
Elastic APM | Analytics, Issue trackers, RUM |
HSTS | Security |
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
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://lx.sn-app-18389-concurrency-limit.review.polly.io/accounts/login/ | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
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 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
URL | Method | Summary |
---|---|---|
https://lx.sn-app-18389-concurrency-limit.review.polly.io/accounts/login/?next=/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET, POST, PUT, HEAD, OPTIONS` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
CWE | CWE-16 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect that Bootstrap has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 4.6.2 End-of-life date: 2023-01-01 Latest version for the cycle: 4.6.2 This release cycle (4) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2018-01-18 and its latest release date was 2022-07-19. The support ended on 2021-11-01.
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
Operating System | Accuracy |
---|---|
Linux 2.6.32 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
lx.sn-app-18389-concurrency-limit.review.polly.io | A | IPv4 address | 13.56.101.124 |
lx.sn-app-18389-concurrency-limit.review.polly.io | TXT | Text record | "heritage=external-dns,external-dns/owner=default,external-dns/resource=ingress/sn-app-18389-concurrency-limit/lxapp" |
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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Sentry | Issue trackers |
Elasticsearch | Search engines |
Python | Programming languages |
Django | Web frameworks |
Bootstrap 4.6.2 | UI frameworks |
Font Awesome | Font scripts |
Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Elastic APM | Analytics, Issue trackers, RUM |
core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
HSTS | Security |
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.