Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | INDO178 * Alternatif Akses Situs Slot88 Resmi Asli Server Solo Pilihan Game Lengkap |
| Description: | INDO178 mempersembahkan alternatif akses situs Slot88 resmi asli dengan dukungan server solo, menghadirkan koneksi stabil serta pilihan game lengkap yang tersusun rapi untuk memudahkan pemain menjelajah berbagai varian dalam satu platform. |
| ip_address | 43.225.53.223 |
| country | AE  |
| network_name | PDR |
| asn | AS394695 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 7.4 |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
53/tcp | domain | PowerDNS Authoritative Server 4.9.2 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.1 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.1 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
2078/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2082/tcp | http | - - |
2083/tcp | https | - - |
2086/tcp | http | - - |
2087/tcp | https | - - |
8888/tcp | http | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Animate.css | UI frameworks |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Bootstrap 3 | UI frameworks |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| Isotope | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| AOS | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| Parsley.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| WOW | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, JavaScript graphics |
| Pattern by Etsy | Ecommerce |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Transcend | Cookie compliance |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-41184 | 6.5 | 0.22087 | 0.95647 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `of` option of the `.position()` util from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `of` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `of` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41183 | 6.5 | 0.0286 | 0.85938 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of various `*Text` options of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. The values passed to various `*Text` options are now always treated as pure text, not HTML. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `*Text` options from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41182 | 6.5 | 0.1926 | 0.95207 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `altField` option of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `altField` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `altField` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2022-31160 | 6.1 | 0.10183 | 0.92959 | jQuery UI is a curated set of user interface interactions, effects, widgets, and themes built on top of jQuery. Versions prior to 1.13.2 are potentially vulnerable to cross-site scripting. Initializing a checkboxradio widget on an input enclosed within a label makes that parent label contents considered as the input label. Calling `.checkboxradio( "refresh" )` on such a widget and the initial HTML contained encoded HTML entities will make them erroneously get decoded. This can lead to potentially executing JavaScript code. The bug has been patched in jQuery UI 1.13.2. To remediate the issue, someone who can change the initial HTML can wrap all the non-input contents of the `label` in a `span`. |
| CVE-2016-7103 | 6.1 | 0.01397 | 0.80089 | Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in jQuery UI before 1.12.0 might allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the closeText parameter of the dialog function. |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Animate.css | UI frameworks |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Bootstrap 3 | UI frameworks |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| Isotope | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| AOS | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| Parsley.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| WOW | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, JavaScript graphics |
| Pattern by Etsy | Ecommerce |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Transcend | Cookie compliance |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
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
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).
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://kartkitchen.com/terms-and-agreement | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,POST,OPTIONS,HEAD` 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 |
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-2023-38408 | 9.8 | 0.66852 | 0.98506 | No | The PKCS#11 feature in ssh-agent in OpenSSH before 9.3p2 has an insufficiently trustworthy search path, leading to remote code execution if an agent is forwarded to an attacker-controlled system. (Code in /usr/lib is not necessarily safe for loading into ssh-agent.) NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2016-10009. |
| CVE-2020-15778 | 7.4 | 0.61479 | 0.98278 | No | scp in OpenSSH through 8.3p1 allows command injection in the scp.c toremote function, as demonstrated by backtick characters in the destination argument. NOTE: the vendor reportedly has stated that they intentionally omit validation of "anomalous argument transfers" because that could "stand a great chance of breaking existing workflows." |
| CVE-2021-41617 | 7 | 0.00274 | 0.50403 | No | sshd in OpenSSH 6.2 through 8.x before 8.8, when certain non-default configurations are used, allows privilege escalation because supplemental groups are not initialized as expected. Helper programs for AuthorizedKeysCommand and AuthorizedPrincipalsCommand may run with privileges associated with group memberships of the sshd process, if the configuration specifies running the command as a different user. |
| CVE-2025-26465 | 6.8 | 0.64393 | 0.98399 | 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-2019-6110 | 6.8 | 0.51287 | 0.97806 | No | In OpenSSH 7.9, due to accepting and displaying arbitrary stderr output from the server, a malicious server (or Man-in-The-Middle attacker) can manipulate the client output, for example to use ANSI control codes to hide additional files being transferred. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Openssh 7.4
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 2026-02-16 06:29 EET Nmap scan report for kartkitchen.com (43.225.53.223) Host is up (0.14s latency). rDNS record for 43.225.53.223: server.lotuselectronics.com
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 7.4 (protocol 2.0) | ssh-auth-methods: | Supported authentication methods: | publickey | gssapi-keyex | gssapi-with-mic |_ password
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2.60 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 a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp Pure-FTPd
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.kartkitchen.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4O/gBT93Z0VFDi0iSAxembae22RQ8jlDt8KOzCApMjuOZL1EIiTBMpZzTZP4LM9fAo/bd0UPhznSEGl/hX4ozAD5hei14XtXmAaCmNaklUyhyT3X3v3+XULNqqwvybl9pt1LobxtXg4Eqnu6AHF4E4o4+exKpHCwTFQztuH5Hno/gcVd6FykPKcKFt3fZeYwn" "FHw6DRcQ6Sy5xR6z8CDEl/oGYdmDZ/5lYNsEwdVHDy/D++j5qSm9Sqz6xdUIjQKnG764kqMqGpZlAo+z6wmeIwMINwkUe1jWM8Nvlc11DdU+D7EuHYvPByHYOIs6J3G3yvU2O97tYYCZjyNR5I0kQIDAQAB;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.
Risk description
Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.kartkitchen.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.lotuselectronics.com, ns2.lotuselectronics.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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.kartkitchen.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.kartkitchen.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4O/gBT93Z0VFDi0iSAxembae22RQ8jlDt8KOzCApMjuOZL1EIiTBMpZzTZP4LM9fAo/bd0UPhznSEGl/hX4ozAD5hei14XtXmAaCmNaklUyhyT3X3v3+XULNqqwvybl9pt1LobxtXg4Eqnu6AHF4E4o4+exKpHCwTFQztuH5Hno/gcVd6FykPKcKFt3fZeYwn" "FHw6DRcQ6Sy5xR6z8CDEl/oGYdmDZ/5lYNsEwdVHDy/D++j5qSm9Sqz6xdUIjQKnG764kqMqGpZlAo+z6wmeIwMINwkUe1jWM8Nvlc11DdU+D7EuHYvPByHYOIs6J3G3yvU2O97tYYCZjyNR5I0kQIDAQAB;" |
| s1 | rsa | 1446 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAyd94cu0KZQ2buJXk/qnpDi9rhkOfnGzy79KH2mQWv0X9gIc9ARh1TYkQDc9Ki9RD+EPjNRuf+PHf9o6tJ+nevjEFBpPOOYcvAccVq7CoQNFzcOMv7Eqv/ViY5zPDI78EYbRe3tHGuRgRRJnmXatRbfg7ilQvcOWeCSUvqDnrTuOazScav+9sXlTt0eyTLUzkYMS7c" "y5EiS8dly/LxJYlxPpsrNUz7IrtMKPZGP+93vSwOYrQdL4t8qAjM8B3Yk5buqQkLzdTGZmbiNOVJwLfB4yK+qkpffEUGFhwyHfZk0n06NlEheE5uPT3GHclljuUN2ncqZpiMTJcT7l3fI8a5QIDAQAB" |
| s2 | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCngRfHtwC89Y+pXZmnqaCW2qVxU4CS2S8iVsZ5gCi33+1lHIh4Nisn4BHWvDIG4oqSwVyOAgnT1JswARSCTVI1hqWdwQqMG+DuWerYhvGCXhAQOSMi5eXI4h631tFQ1sq59bIYvaYiTfBr6y1QNQjmypHMfkTRnyyz9jwUv5Bl3wIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Python | Programming languages |
| Bootstrap 5.3.0 | UI frameworks |
| Uvicorn | Web servers |
| jsDelivr | 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 |
|---|---|
| Basic | 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 4.4 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| kartkitchen.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:43.225.53.223 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cPanel | Hosting panels |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| kartkitchen.com | A | IPv4 address | 43.225.53.223 |
| kartkitchen.com | NS | Name server | ns1.lotuselectronics.com |
| kartkitchen.com | NS | Name server | ns2.lotuselectronics.com |
| kartkitchen.com | MX | Mail server | 0 kartkitchen-com.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| kartkitchen.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.lotuselectronics.com. root.server.lotuselectronics.com. 2026011301 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
| kartkitchen.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:43.225.53.223 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
| _dmarc.kartkitchen.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
| WOW | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, JavaScript graphics |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Animate.css | UI frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Parsley.js | JavaScript libraries |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| 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.