Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Account Suspended |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 141.94.161.61 |
| country | FR  |
| network_name | Ovh Sas |
| asn | AS16276 |
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 | LiteSpeed - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | LiteSpeed - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.2 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.2 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
2078/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2082/tcp | infowave | - - |
2083/tcp | radsec | - - |
2086/tcp | gnunet | - - |
2087/tcp | eli | - - |
No technologies could be detected.
Web Application Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities were found.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-38408 | 9.8 | 0.67238 | 0.98584 | 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-2026-35385 | 7.5 | 0.00059 | 0.18406 | No | In OpenSSH before 10.3, a file downloaded by scp may be installed setuid or setgid, an outcome contrary to some users' expectations, if the download is performed as root with -O (legacy scp protocol) and without -p (preserve mode). |
| CVE-2020-15778 | 7.4 | 0.64277 | 0.98465 | 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 | 0.5086 | 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 | 0.61222 | 0.98336 | 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. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-33608 | 7.4 | 0.00007 | 0.0055 | No | An attacker can send a notify request that causes a new secondary domain to be added to the bind backend, but causes said backend to update its configuration to an invalid one, leading to the backend no longer able to run on the next restart, requiring manual operation to fix it. |
| CVE-2026-33611 | 6.5 | 0.00022 | 0.06334 | No | An operator allowed to use the REST API can cause the Authoritative server to produce invalid HTTPS or SVCB record data, which can in turn cause LMDB database corruption, if using the LMDB backend. |
| CVE-2026-33610 | 5.9 | 0.0002 | 0.05639 | No | A rogue primary server may cause file descriptor exhaustion and eventually a denial of service, when a PowerDNS secondary server forwards a DNS update request to it. |
| CVE-2026-33609 | 5.3 | 0.00008 | 0.00798 | No | Incomplete escaping of LDAP queries when running with 8bit-dns enabled allows users to perform queries of internal domain subtrees. |
| CVE-2026-33260 | 5.3 | 0.00012 | 0.01593 | No | An attacker can send a web request that causes unlimited memory allocation in the internal web server, leading to a denial of service. The internal web server is disabled by default. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Powerdns Authoritative Server 4.9.2
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 2026-05-16 13:06 EEST Nmap scan report for advance-capacitors.com (141.94.161.61) Host is up (0.0063s latency). rDNS record for 141.94.161.61: ns3202469.ip-141-94-161.eu
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 1.01 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| advance-capacitors.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:141.94.161.61 +a +mx +ip4:51.210.113.215 ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
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
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAoa+laak9yhI2LfAgBRMcl2iU7J6cumFbm0BKeT3J0pN3mYa8RuQaQD2wMGk3mfp+XStCPqCuzvVRBwv3fGtaHY/hzvoG7ZjBFQX7AvznUrF6iLg+I+A2AQlsVpFvkySIiPg3yEJvUFHdo7T8sdAq/9XuGt6I5kqodl4V2Ld0b0Ee7+nj/Rujla8mmIJsjS+1O" "E8RPDfxEYbix6DD9ffWF7suyDl+rfjqbbV+URTHLQEiu3cC7xdOBGVx87cVveXKWsk0sQw74HF4laQ0DD0sq69PthNWNTU5IjWbluqsGUXGvNNWGvDstdzAmvuZkIAAYts3qcM9xsNWTzQA2skc4wIDAQAB;" |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 2.6.32 | 94% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAoa+laak9yhI2LfAgBRMcl2iU7J6cumFbm0BKeT3J0pN3mYa8RuQaQD2wMGk3mfp+XStCPqCuzvVRBwv3fGtaHY/hzvoG7ZjBFQX7AvznUrF6iLg+I+A2AQlsVpFvkySIiPg3yEJvUFHdo7T8sdAq/9XuGt6I5kqodl4V2Ld0b0Ee7+nj/Rujla8mmIJsjS+1O" "E8RPDfxEYbix6DD9ffWF7suyDl+rfjqbbV+URTHLQEiu3cC7xdOBGVx87cVveXKWsk0sQw74HF4laQ0DD0sq69PthNWNTU5IjWbluqsGUXGvNNWGvDstdzAmvuZkIAAYts3qcM9xsNWTzQA2skc4wIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| advance-capacitors.com | A | IPv4 address | 141.94.161.61 |
| advance-capacitors.com | NS | Name server | ns2.cprapid.com |
| advance-capacitors.com | NS | Name server | ns1.cprapid.com |
| advance-capacitors.com | MX | Mail server | 0 advance-capacitors.com |
| advance-capacitors.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.cprapid.com. root.server15.dnsserverboot.com. 2026050801 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
| advance-capacitors.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:141.94.161.61 +a +mx +ip4:51.210.113.215 ~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
| 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.