Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Cat Searcher PRO - Recherche de Données Avancée |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 195.178.110.125 |
| country | BG  |
| network_name | Dataforest GMBH |
| asn | AS58212 |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 9.6p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu13.14 |
80/tcp | http | nginx 1.24.0 |
443/tcp | https | nginx 1.24.0 |
5000/tcp | http | - - |
8080/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.58 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap 5.3.3 | UI frameworks |
| Bootstrap Icons 1.11.0 | Font scripts |
| Nginx 1.24.0 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| HSTS | Security |
| Ubuntu | Operating systems |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://195.178.110.125/login | session | Set-Cookie: session=.eJxdj92KAjEMhV9lNtejTDtVoVey4D7A4p1IqW1kC20cJq2siO--2Z8b9ybhnOQ7JHdw5-z5Axns4Q5dlQbcQkBm6OE1IV2RGnYqjlFHPSqp0XQvcHwce3ATzsUTknB1btgDFp8yWMBPX6aM7kdv_9QyXIqkJnY-lkRgzz6zQHJBdT7UdE31JrAe9Gqh1GIwe7W2SluzWa43q9EYobmdOMxpqulCDimCpZbzP7_eJpSgt_fdTpDGOLskm2pQv4p8-Z4_fwWPL1TVV9E.aQol_w._SJyuyqlD8nz-MTkmaXkT-A0Qvc |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application's web server presents an SSL/TLS certificate that is not trusted by web browsers. This issue typically arises when the server uses a self-signed certificate, a certificate from an untrusted authority, or a certificate that has expired or is invalid for other reasons. The lack of a trusted certificate makes it challenging for users to verify the authenticity of the server, undermining the security of the SSL/TLS connection.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could easily mount a man-in-the-middle attack in order to sniff the SSL communication by presenting the user a fake SSL certificate.
Recommendation
We recommend you to configure a trusted SSL certificate for the web server. Examples of how to configure SSL for various servers for Apache and Nginx are referenced.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://195.178.110.125/login | POST | Body: password=Secure123456$ username=1d3d2d231d2dd4 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 Cookies: session=.eJxdj92KAjEMhV9lNtejTDtVoVey4D7A4p1IqW1kC20cJq2siO--2Z8b9ybhnOQ7JHdw5-z5A... | The following form sends inputs of type password plainly in the URL: ` |
Vulnerability description
We found a form which is submitted using a GET method and has inputs of the type password. The end result is that passwords are submitted in URLs.
Risk description
Passwords submitted in URLs have a higher chance of being leaked. The main reason is that URLs can be leaked in browser cross-site requests via the Referer header. Additionally, URLs are usually stored in all kinds of logs. If any access or error logs of the server were publicly accessible, an attacker could also harvest password from it.
Recommendation
You should submit passwords using POST rather than GET. This way sensitive data won't be shared to other locations via URLs.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://195.178.110.125/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap 5.3.3 | UI frameworks |
| Bootstrap Icons 1.11.0 | Font scripts |
| Nginx 1.24.0 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| HSTS | Security |
| Ubuntu | Operating systems |
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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://195.178.110.125/login | POST | Body: password=Secure123456$ username=1d3d2d231d2dd4 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 Cookies: session=.eJxdj92KAjEMhV9lNtejTDtVoVey4D7A4p1IqW1kC20cJq2siO--2Z8b9ybhnOQ7JHdw5-z5A... | Suspicious comment ADMIN found in: |
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application's code contains suspicious comments that may be related to potential bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses. These comments often arise during development and testing phases but are inadvertently left in the code.
Risk description
The risk exists that attackers could analyze these comments to identify vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the application. While comments themselves do not directly lead to security breaches, they may guide attackers to focus their efforts on specific parts of the application, potentially uncovering and exploiting vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Remove comments that suggest the presence of bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses, before deploying the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-209 |
| 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.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://195.178.110.125/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET, 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 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://195.178.110.125/login | POST | Body: password=Secure123456$ username=1d3d2d231d2dd4 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 Cookies: session=.eJxdj92KAjEMhV9lNtejTDtVoVey4D7A4p1IqW1kC20cJq2siO--2Z8b9ybhnOQ7JHdw5-z5A... | The following form allows file upload: ` |
Vulnerability description
We found the file upload functionality in the web application. While this is not a security issue by itself, it may represent a first step in an attack involving storing data on the target server.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker might use the file upload functionality for path traversal, persistent XSS, transmission of malware or denial of service, if such vulnerabilities are present.
Recommendation
Use a server-generated filename, inspect the content of uploaded files, enforce a whitelist of non-executable file types and a size limit, and reject attempts to upload archive formats such as ZIP.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-434 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://195.178.110.125/register |
|
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.
Recommendation
Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-38476 | 9.8 | 0.01306 | 0.79197 | No | Vulnerability in core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier are vulnerably to information disclosure, SSRF or local script execution via backend applications whose response headers are malicious or exploitable. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. |
| CVE-2024-38474 | 9.8 | 0.00414 | 0.60992 | No | Substitution encoding issue in mod_rewrite in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows attacker to execute scripts in directories permitted by the configuration but not directly reachable by any URL or source disclosure of scripts meant to only to be executed as CGI. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. Some RewriteRules that capture and substitute unsafely will now fail unless rewrite flag "UnsafeAllow3F" is specified. |
| CVE-2025-23048 | 9.1 | 0.00086 | 0.25718 | 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-2024-38475 | 9.1 | 0.93775 | 0.99848 | Yes | Improper escaping of output in mod_rewrite in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows an attacker to map URLs to filesystem locations that are permitted to be served by the server but are not intentionally/directly reachable by any URL, resulting in code execution or source code disclosure. Substitutions in server context that use a backreferences or variables as the first segment of the substitution are affected. Some unsafe RewiteRules will be broken by this change and the rewrite flag "UnsafePrefixStat" can be used to opt back in once ensuring the substitution is appropriately constrained. |
| CVE-2024-38473 | 8.1 | 0.85936 | 0.99352 | No | Encoding problem in mod_proxy in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows request URLs with incorrect encoding to be sent to backend services, potentially bypassing authentication via crafted requests. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.58
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 2025-11-04 18:16 EET Nmap scan report for 195.178.110.125 Host is up (0.013s latency).
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 9.6p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu13.14 (Ubuntu Linux; protocol 2.0) | ssh-auth-methods: | Supported authentication methods: | publickey |_ password Service Info: OS: Linux; CPE: cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.79 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 managed to detect that nginx has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.24.0 End-of-life date: 2024-04-23 Latest version for the cycle: 1.24.0 This release cycle (1.24) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2023-04-11 and its latest release date was 2023-04-11.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
We managed to detect that nginx has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.24.0 End-of-life date: 2024-04-23 Latest version for the cycle: 1.24.0 This release cycle (1.24) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2023-04-11 and its latest release date was 2023-04-11.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 4.15 - 5.6 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Python | Programming languages |
| Bootstrap 5.3.3 | UI frameworks |
| gunicorn | Web servers |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Bootstrap Icons 1.11.0 | Font scripts |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Ubuntu | Operating systems |
| Nginx 1.24.0 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
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 |
|---|---|
| Ubuntu | Operating systems |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.58 | Web servers |
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 |
|---|---|
| Ubuntu | Operating systems |
| Bootstrap 5.3.0 | UI frameworks |
| Nginx 1.24.0 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| 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.