Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | No title found |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 45.130.41.165 |
| country | RU  |
| network_name | Beget LLC |
| asn | AS198610 |
21/tcp | ftp | vsftpd 2.0.8 or later |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 9.8 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.63 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.63 |
3306/tcp | mysql | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| FancyBox 3.3.5 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Lodash 4.17.10 | JavaScript libraries |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-10744 | 9.1 | 0.01101 | 0.77503 | Versions of lodash lower than 4.17.12 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor payload. |
| CVE-2020-8203 | 7.4 | 0.02053 | 0.83395 | Prototype pollution attack when using _.zipObjectDeep in lodash before 4.17.20. |
| CVE-2021-23337 | 7.2 | 0.00194 | 0.41547 | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function. |
| CVE-2019-1010266 | 6.5 | 0.00093 | 0.26606 | lodash prior to 4.17.11 is affected by: CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption. The impact is: Denial of service. The component is: Date handler. The attack vector is: Attacker provides very long strings, which the library attempts to match using a regular expression. The fixed version is: 4.17.11. |
| CVE-2018-16487 | 5.6 | 0.00207 | 0.43137 | A prototype pollution vulnerability was found in lodash <4.17.11 where the functions merge, mergeWith, and defaultsDeep can be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype. |
Vulnerability description
Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.
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. 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
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-1035 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.32446 | 0.96695 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-11022 | 6.9 | 0.30076 | 0.96499 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.0178 | 0.82201 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
Vulnerability description
Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.
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. 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
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-1035 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Response URL | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| http://scantrustwallet.com/ | http://scantrustwallet.com/ | Communication is made over unsecure, unencrypted HTTP. |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the communication between the web browser and the server is done using the HTTP protocol, which transmits data unencrypted over the network.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who manages to intercept the communication at the network level can read and modify the data transmitted (including passwords, secret tokens, credit card information and other sensitive data).
Recommendation
We recommend you to reconfigure the web server to use HTTPS - which encrypts the communication between the web browser and the server.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-311 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| FancyBox 3.3.5 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Lodash 4.17.10 | JavaScript libraries |
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 |
|---|---|
| http://scantrustwallet.com/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://scantrustwallet.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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://scantrustwallet.com/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-10744 | 9.1 | 0.01101 | 0.77503 | No | Versions of lodash lower than 4.17.12 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor payload. |
| CVE-2020-8203 | 7.4 | 0.02053 | 0.83395 | No | Prototype pollution attack when using _.zipObjectDeep in lodash before 4.17.20. |
| CVE-2021-23337 | 7.2 | 0.00194 | 0.41547 | No | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function. |
| CVE-2019-1010266 | 6.5 | 0.00093 | 0.26606 | No | lodash prior to 4.17.11 is affected by: CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption. The impact is: Denial of service. The component is: Date handler. The attack vector is: Attacker provides very long strings, which the library attempts to match using a regular expression. The fixed version is: 4.17.11. |
| CVE-2018-16487 | 5.6 | 0.00207 | 0.43137 | No | A prototype pollution vulnerability was found in lodash <4.17.11 where the functions merge, mergeWith, and defaultsDeep can be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Lodash 4.17.10
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-6387 | 8.1 | 0.54478 | 0.97914 | No | A security regression (CVE-2006-5051) was discovered in OpenSSH's server (sshd). There is a race condition which can lead sshd to handle some signals in an unsafe manner. An unauthenticated, remote attacker may be able to trigger it by failing to authenticate within a set time period. |
| CVE-2025-26465 | 6.8 | 0.49941 | 0.977 | No | A vulnerability was found in OpenSSH when the VerifyHostKeyDNS option is enabled. A machine-in-the-middle attack can be performed by a malicious machine impersonating a legit server. This issue occurs due to how OpenSSH mishandles error codes in specific conditions when verifying the host key. For an attack to be considered successful, the attacker needs to manage to exhaust the client's memory resource first, turning the attack complexity high. |
| CVE-2025-26466 | 5.9 | 0.4745 | 0.97575 | No | A flaw was found in the OpenSSH package. For each ping packet the SSH server receives, a pong packet is allocated in a memory buffer and stored in a queue of packages. It is only freed when the server/client key exchange has finished. A malicious client may keep sending such packages, leading to an uncontrolled increase in memory consumption on the server side. Consequently, the server may become unavailable, resulting in a denial of service attack. |
| CVE-2025-32728 | 4.3 | 0.00029 | 0.0748 | No | In sshd in OpenSSH before 10.0, the DisableForwarding directive does not adhere to the documentation stating that it disables X11 and agent forwarding. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Openssh 9.8
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-23048 | 9.1 | 0.00145 | 0.35439 | No | In some mod_ssl configurations on Apache HTTP Server 2.4.35 through to 2.4.63, an access control bypass by trusted clients is possible using TLS 1.3 session resumption. Configurations are affected when mod_ssl is configured for multiple virtual hosts, with each restricted to a different set of trusted client certificates (for example with a different SSLCACertificateFile/Path setting). In such a case, a client trusted to access one virtual host may be able to access another virtual host, if SSLStrictSNIVHostCheck is not enabled in either virtual host. |
| CVE-2025-53020 | 7.5 | 0.00606 | 0.68913 | No | Late Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.17 up to 2.4.63. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.64, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2025-49630 | 7.5 | 0.00567 | 0.67745 | No | In certain proxy configurations, a denial of service attack against Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.26 through to 2.4.63 can be triggered by untrusted clients causing an assertion in mod_proxy_http2. Configurations affected are a reverse proxy is configured for an HTTP/2 backend, with ProxyPreserveHost set to "on". |
| CVE-2024-47252 | 7.5 | 0.00188 | 0.40902 | No | Insufficient escaping of user-supplied data in mod_ssl in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.63 and earlier allows an untrusted SSL/TLS client to insert escape characters into log files in some configurations. In a logging configuration where CustomLog is used with "%{varname}x" or "%{varname}c" to log variables provided by mod_ssl such as SSL_TLS_SNI, no escaping is performed by either mod_log_config or mod_ssl and unsanitized data provided by the client may appear in log files. |
| CVE-2024-43394 | 7.5 | 0.00215 | 0.44091 | No | Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Apache HTTP Server on Windows allows to potentially leak NTLM hashes to a malicious server via mod_rewrite or apache expressions that pass unvalidated request input. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.63. Note: The Apache HTTP Server Project will be setting a higher bar for accepting vulnerability reports regarding SSRF via UNC paths. The server offers limited protection against administrators directing the server to open UNC paths. Windows servers should limit the hosts they will connect over via SMB based on the nature of NTLM authentication. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache Httpd 2.4.63
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-23048 | 9.1 | 0.00145 | 0.35439 | No | In some mod_ssl configurations on Apache HTTP Server 2.4.35 through to 2.4.63, an access control bypass by trusted clients is possible using TLS 1.3 session resumption. Configurations are affected when mod_ssl is configured for multiple virtual hosts, with each restricted to a different set of trusted client certificates (for example with a different SSLCACertificateFile/Path setting). In such a case, a client trusted to access one virtual host may be able to access another virtual host, if SSLStrictSNIVHostCheck is not enabled in either virtual host. |
| CVE-2025-53020 | 7.5 | 0.00606 | 0.68913 | No | Late Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.17 up to 2.4.63. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.64, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2025-49630 | 7.5 | 0.00567 | 0.67745 | No | In certain proxy configurations, a denial of service attack against Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.26 through to 2.4.63 can be triggered by untrusted clients causing an assertion in mod_proxy_http2. Configurations affected are a reverse proxy is configured for an HTTP/2 backend, with ProxyPreserveHost set to "on". |
| CVE-2024-47252 | 7.5 | 0.00188 | 0.40902 | No | Insufficient escaping of user-supplied data in mod_ssl in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.63 and earlier allows an untrusted SSL/TLS client to insert escape characters into log files in some configurations. In a logging configuration where CustomLog is used with "%{varname}x" or "%{varname}c" to log variables provided by mod_ssl such as SSL_TLS_SNI, no escaping is performed by either mod_log_config or mod_ssl and unsanitized data provided by the client may appear in log files. |
| CVE-2024-43394 | 7.5 | 0.00215 | 0.44091 | No | Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Apache HTTP Server on Windows allows to potentially leak NTLM hashes to a malicious server via mod_rewrite or apache expressions that pass unvalidated request input. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.63. Note: The Apache HTTP Server Project will be setting a higher bar for accepting vulnerability reports regarding SSRF via UNC paths. The server offers limited protection against administrators directing the server to open UNC paths. Windows servers should limit the hosts they will connect over via SMB based on the nature of NTLM authentication. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache Httpd 2.4.63
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-10744 | 9.1 | 0.01101 | 0.77503 | No | Versions of lodash lower than 4.17.12 are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution. The function defaultsDeep could be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype using a constructor payload. |
| CVE-2020-8203 | 7.4 | 0.02053 | 0.83395 | No | Prototype pollution attack when using _.zipObjectDeep in lodash before 4.17.20. |
| CVE-2021-23337 | 7.2 | 0.00194 | 0.41547 | No | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function. |
| CVE-2019-1010266 | 6.5 | 0.00093 | 0.26606 | No | lodash prior to 4.17.11 is affected by: CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption. The impact is: Denial of service. The component is: Date handler. The attack vector is: Attacker provides very long strings, which the library attempts to match using a regular expression. The fixed version is: 4.17.11. |
| CVE-2018-16487 | 5.6 | 0.00207 | 0.43137 | No | A prototype pollution vulnerability was found in lodash <4.17.11 where the functions merge, mergeWith, and defaultsDeep can be tricked into adding or modifying properties of Object.prototype. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Lodash 4.17.10
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.32446 | 0.96695 | Yes | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-11022 | 6.9 | 0.30076 | 0.96499 | No | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.0178 | 0.82201 | No | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 3.3.1
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.32446 | 0.96695 | Yes | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-11022 | 6.9 | 0.30076 | 0.96499 | No | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.0178 | 0.82201 | No | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 3.3.1
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 2025-12-04 22:40 EET Nmap scan report for scantrustwallet.com (45.130.41.165) Host is up (0.062s latency). rDNS record for 45.130.41.165: ssl.gravity.beget.com
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 9.8 (protocol 2.0) | ssh-auth-methods: | Supported authentication methods: | publickey |_ password
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.79 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 checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns2.beget.pro, ns1.beget.pro, ns2.beget.com, ns1.beget.com
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
We didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.
Vulnerability description
We found that the target server has no DMARC policy configured. A missing DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy means that the domain is not enforcing any DMARC policies to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks. Without DMARC, even if SPF (Sender Policy Framework) or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are configured, there is no mechanism to tell receiving email servers how to handle messages that fail authentication. This leaves the domain vulnerable to abuse, such as email spoofing and impersonation.
Risk description
Without a DMARC policy, your domain is highly vulnerable to email spoofing, allowing attackers to impersonate your brand and send fraudulent emails that appear legitimate. This can lead to phishing attacks targeting your customers, employees, or partners, potentially resulting in stolen credentials, financial loss, or unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Additionally, repeated spoofing attempts can severely damage your brand's reputation, as recipients may lose trust in communications from your domain, associating your brand with malicious activity. The absence of DMARC also prevents you from monitoring and mitigating email-based attacks, leaving your domain exposed to ongoing abuse.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing a DMARC policy for your domain. Start by configuring a DMARC record with a policy of p=none, which will allow you to monitor email flows without impacting legitimate emails. This initial setup helps identify how emails from your domain are being processed by recipient servers. Once you’ve verified that legitimate emails are passing SPF and DKIM checks, you can gradually enforce stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject to protect against spoofing and phishing attacks. Additionally, include rua and ruf email addresses in the DMARC record to receive aggregate and forensic reports. These reports will provide valuable insights into authentication failures and help you detect any spoofing attempts.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp vsftpd 2.0.8 or later
Vulnerability description
We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 3.8 | 93% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Lodash 4.17.10 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| FancyBox 3.3.5 | JavaScript libraries |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| scantrustwallet.com | A | IPv4 address | 45.130.41.165 |
| scantrustwallet.com | NS | Name server | ns2.beget.pro |
| scantrustwallet.com | NS | Name server | ns1.beget.pro |
| scantrustwallet.com | NS | Name server | ns2.beget.com |
| scantrustwallet.com | NS | Name server | ns1.beget.com |
| scantrustwallet.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mx1.beget.com |
| scantrustwallet.com | MX | Mail server | 20 mx2.beget.com |
| scantrustwallet.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.beget.com. hostmaster.beget.com. 1762890313 300 600 86400 300 |
| scantrustwallet.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 redirect=beget.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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Lodash 4.17.10 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| FancyBox 3.3.5 | JavaScript libraries |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| scantrustwallet.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 redirect=beget.com" |