Vulnerability Scan Result

IP address | 124.43.130.143 |
Country | LK ![]() |
AS number | AS9329 |
Net name | SRI Lanka Telecom Ltd |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | Microsoft IIS httpd 10 |
8081/tcp | https | Apache Tomcat 9.0.24 |
8443/tcp | http | - - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Angular | JavaScript frameworks |
Bootstrap 4.6.2 | UI frameworks |
Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Windows Server | Operating systems |
Popper | Miscellaneous |
Microsoft ASP.NET | Web frameworks |
IIS 10.0 | Web servers |
jsDelivr | CDN |
TypeScript | Programming languages |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
---|---|---|
https://smarthome.slt.lk/ | BNI_persistence | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: BNI_persistence=00000000000000000000000018e814ac00005000 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly
flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
CWE | CWE-1004 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://smarthome.slt.lk/ | 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://smarthome.slt.lk/ | 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://smarthome.slt.lk/ | 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 | Evidence |
---|---|
https://smarthome.slt.lk/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Angular | JavaScript frameworks |
Bootstrap 4.6.2 | UI frameworks |
Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Windows Server | Operating systems |
Popper | Miscellaneous |
Microsoft ASP.NET | Web frameworks |
IIS 10.0 | Web servers |
jsDelivr | CDN |
TypeScript | Programming languages |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Classification
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
URL | Method | Summary |
---|---|---|
https://smarthome.slt.lk/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET, HEAD, POST` 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
9.8 | CVE-2024-52316 | Unchecked Error Condition vulnerability in Apache Tomcat. If Tomcat is configured to use a custom Jakarta Authentication (formerly JASPIC) ServerAuthContext component which may throw an exception during the authentication process without explicitly setting an HTTP status to indicate failure, the authentication may not fail, allowing the user to bypass the authentication process. There are no known Jakarta Authentication components that behave in this way. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M26, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.30, from 9.0.0-M1 through 9.0.95. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.0, 10.1.31 or 9.0.96, which fix the issue. | |
9.8 | CVE-2025-24813 | Path Equivalence: 'file.Name' (Internal Dot) leading to Remote Code Execution and/or Information disclosure and/or malicious content added to uploaded files via write enabled Default Servlet in Apache Tomcat. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.2, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.34, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.98. If all of the following were true, a malicious user was able to view security sensitive files and/or inject content into those files: - writes enabled for the default servlet (disabled by default) - support for partial PUT (enabled by default) - a target URL for security sensitive uploads that was a sub-directory of a target URL for public uploads - attacker knowledge of the names of security sensitive files being uploaded - the security sensitive files also being uploaded via partial PUT If all of the following were true, a malicious user was able to perform remote code execution: - writes enabled for the default servlet (disabled by default) - support for partial PUT (enabled by default) - application was using Tomcat's file based session persistence with the default storage location - application included a library that may be leveraged in a deserialization attack Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.3, 10.1.35 or 9.0.99, which fixes the issue. | |
9.8 | CVE-2025-31651 | Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences vulnerability in Apache Tomcat. For a subset of unlikely rewrite rule configurations, it was possible for a specially crafted request to bypass some rewrite rules. If those rewrite rules effectively enforced security constraints, those constraints could be bypassed. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.5, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.39, from 9.0.0.M1 through 9.0.102. Users are recommended to upgrade to version [FIXED_VERSION], which fixes the issue. | |
8.6 | CVE-2024-38286 | Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in Apache Tomcat. This issue affects Apache Tomcat: from 11.0.0-M1 through 11.0.0-M20, from 10.1.0-M1 through 10.1.24, from 9.0.13 through 9.0.89. Older, unsupported versions may also be affected. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 11.0.0-M21, 10.1.25, or 9.0.90, which fixes the issue. Apache Tomcat, under certain configurations on any platform, allows an attacker to cause an OutOfMemoryError by abusing the TLS handshake process. | |
7.5 | CVE-2020-1938 | When using the Apache JServ Protocol (AJP), care must be taken when trusting incoming connections to Apache Tomcat. Tomcat treats AJP connections as having higher trust than, for example, a similar HTTP connection. If such connections are available to an attacker, they can be exploited in ways that may be surprising. In Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.30, 8.5.0 to 8.5.50 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.99, Tomcat shipped with an AJP Connector enabled by default that listened on all configured IP addresses. It was expected (and recommended in the security guide) that this Connector would be disabled if not required. This vulnerability report identified a mechanism that allowed: - returning arbitrary files from anywhere in the web application - processing any file in the web application as a JSP Further, if the web application allowed file upload and stored those files within the web application (or the attacker was able to control the content of the web application by some other means) then this, along with the ability to process a file as a JSP, made remote code execution possible. It is important to note that mitigation is only required if an AJP port is accessible to untrusted users. Users wishing to take a defence-in-depth approach and block the vector that permits returning arbitrary files and execution as JSP may upgrade to Apache Tomcat 9.0.31, 8.5.51 or 7.0.100 or later. A number of changes were made to the default AJP Connector configuration in 9.0.31 to harden the default configuration. It is likely that users upgrading to 9.0.31, 8.5.51 or 7.0.100 or later will need to make small changes to their configurations. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache Tomcat 9.0.24
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
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
smarthome.slt.lk | A | IPv4 address | 124.43.130.143 |
smarthome.slt.lk | MX | Mail server | 20 mailin-04.gw.sltidc.lk |
smarthome.slt.lk | MX | Mail server | 10 mailin-05.gw.sltidc.lk |
smarthome.slt.lk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx a ptr a:cgprof01.sltidc.lk a:cgprof02.sltidc.lk a:cgprof04.sltidc.lk a:adm.sltidc.lk a:mail.smarthome.slt.lk ip4:124.43.128.144/28 -all" |
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 |
---|---|
Kyocera CopyStar CS-2560 printer | 90% |
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 |
---|---|
Windows Server | Operating systems |
Microsoft ASP.NET | Web frameworks |
IIS 10.0 | 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.