Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Professional Medical Billing and Coding Solutions - RCM Hub Medical Billing |
| Description: | RCM Hub Medical Billing offers expert medical billing and coding and revenue cycle management services to help healthcare providers maximize efficiency and boost revenue |
| ip_address | 66.33.60.193 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
| ip_address | 76.76.21.241 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
80/tcp | http | Vercel - |
443/tcp | https | Vercel - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| Next.js 16.1.6 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Turbopack | Development |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-27980 | 6.9 | 0.00022 | 0.06221 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 10.0.0 and prior to version 16.1.7, the default Next.js image optimization disk cache (`/_next/image`) did not have a configurable upper bound, allowing unbounded cache growth. An attacker could generate many unique image-optimization variants and exhaust disk space, causing denial of service. This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by adding an LRU-backed disk cache with `images.maximumDiskCacheSize`, including eviction of least-recently-used entries when the limit is exceeded. Setting `maximumDiskCacheSize: 0` disables disk caching. If upgrading is not immediately possible, periodically clean `.next/cache/images` and/or reduce variant cardinality (e.g., tighten values for `images.localPatterns`, `images.remotePatterns`, and `images.qualities`). |
| CVE-2026-27979 | 6.9 | 0.00019 | 0.05366 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 16.0.1 and prior to version 16.1.7, a request containing the `next-resume: 1` header (corresponding with a PPR resume request) would buffer request bodies without consistently enforcing `maxPostponedStateSize` in certain setups. The previous mitigation protected minimal-mode deployments, but equivalent non-minimal deployments remained vulnerable to the same unbounded postponed resume-body buffering behavior. In applications using the App Router with Partial Prerendering capability enabled (via `experimental.ppr` or `cacheComponents`), an attacker could send oversized `next-resume` POST payloads that were buffered without consistent size enforcement in non-minimal deployments, causing excessive memory usage and potential denial of service. This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by enforcing size limits across all postponed-body buffering paths and erroring when limits are exceeded. If upgrading is not immediately possible, block requests containing the `next-resume` header, as this is never valid to be sent from an untrusted client. |
| CVE-2026-29057 | 6.3 | 0.00031 | 0.09014 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 9.5.0 and prior to versions 15.5.13 and 16.1.7, when Next.js rewrites proxy traffic to an external backend, a crafted `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` request using `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` could trigger request boundary disagreement between the proxy and backend. This could allow request smuggling through rewritten routes. An attacker could smuggle a second request to unintended backend routes (for example, internal/admin endpoints), bypassing assumptions that only the configured rewrite destination/path is reachable. This does not impact applications hosted on providers that handle rewrites at the CDN level, such as Vercel. The vulnerability originated in an upstream library vendored by Next.js. It is fixed in Next.js 15.5.13 and 16.1.7 by updating that dependency’s behavior so `content-length: 0` is added only when both `content-length` and `transfer-encoding` are absent, and `transfer-encoding` is no longer removed in that code path. If upgrading is not immediately possible, block chunked `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` requests on rewritten routes at the edge/proxy, and/or enforce authentication/authorization on backend routes. |
| CVE-2026-27978 | 5.3 | 0.00008 | 0.00702 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 16.0.1 and prior to version 16.1.7, `origin: null` was treated as a "missing" origin during Server Action CSRF validation. As a result, requests from opaque contexts (such as sandboxed iframes) could bypass origin verification instead of being validated as cross-origin requests. An attacker could induce a victim browser to submit Server Actions from a sandboxed context, potentially executing state-changing actions with victim credentials (CSRF). This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by treating `'null'` as an explicit origin value and enforcing host/origin checks unless `'null'` is explicitly allowlisted in `experimental.serverActions.allowedOrigins`. If upgrading is not immediately possible, add CSRF tokens for sensitive Server Actions, prefer `SameSite=Strict` on sensitive auth cookies, and/or do not allow `'null'` in `serverActions.allowedOrigins` unless intentionally required and additionally protected. |
| CVE-2026-27977 | 2.3 | 0.00007 | 0.00486 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 16.0.1 and prior to version 16.1.7, in `next dev`, cross-site protection for internal websocket endpoints could treat `Origin: null` as a bypass case even if `allowedDevOrigins` is configured, allowing privacy-sensitive/opaque contexts (for example sandboxed documents) to connect unexpectedly. If a dev server is reachable from attacker-controlled content, an attacker may be able to connect to the HMR websocket channel and interact with dev websocket traffic. This affects development mode only. Apps without a configured `allowedDevOrigins` still allow connections from any origin. The issue is fixed in version 16.1.7 by validating `Origin: null` through the same cross-site origin-allowance checks used for other origins. If upgrading is not immediately possible, do not expose `next dev` to untrusted networks and/or block websocket upgrades to `/_next/webpack-hmr` when `Origin` is `null` at the proxy. |
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 |
|---|---|
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| Next.js 16.1.6 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Turbopack | Development |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| 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.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.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 |
|---|---|
| https://www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.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 |
|---|---|
| https://www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.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-1021 |
| 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.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1188 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com/ | GET | Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 | Email Address: info@rcmhubmedicalbilling.com |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.vercel-dns-3.com, ns2.vercel-dns-3.com, ns3.vercel-dns-3.com, ns4.vercel-dns-3.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 found insecure EDNS configuration on the following nameservers: ns2.vercel-dns-3.com ns2.vercel-dns-3.com:
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not properly implement EDNS (Extension Mechanisms for DNS). EDNS allows larger DNS packets and supports modern features such as DNSSEC.
Risk description
The risk exists because improper or missing EDNS support can lead to truncated responses, degraded DNS performance, and compatibility issues with DNSSEC. This exposes users to risks such as incomplete DNS resolution and failed DNSSEC validation.
Recommendation
We recommend ensuring the proper implementation of EDNS on the DNS server. Update the DNS server software to support EDNS fully, including modern features like DNSSEC. Regularly test DNS configurations to ensure compliance and performance.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Android 5.0.1 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Vercel | PaaS |
| 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | A | IPv4 address | 76.76.21.61 |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | A | IPv4 address | 66.33.60.130 |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | NS | Name server | ns1.vercel-dns-3.com |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | NS | Name server | ns2.vercel-dns-3.com |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | NS | Name server | ns3.vercel-dns-3.com |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | NS | Name server | ns4.vercel-dns-3.com |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.vercel-dns-3.com. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 3600 900 1209600 900 |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "globalsign.com" |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "letsencrypt.org" |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "pki.goog" |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "sectigo.com" |
| www.rcmhubmedicalbilling.com | CNAME | Canonical name | cname.vercel-dns.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.