Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | H:DATA |
| Description: | Plataforma H:DATA |
| ip_address | 34.49.176.230 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Google LLC |
| asn | AS396982 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Angular 11.2.14 | JavaScript frameworks |
| ApexCharts.js | JavaScript graphics |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Google Cloud Load Balancing | Load balancers |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| core-js 3.12.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Lodash 4.17.21 | JavaScript libraries |
| Microsoft Power BI | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-4800 | 8.1 | 0.02759 | 0.85635 | Impact: The fix for CVE-2021-23337 (https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm) added validation for the variable option in _.template but did not apply the same validation to options.imports key names. Both paths flow into the same Function() constructor sink. When an application passes untrusted input as options.imports key names, an attacker can inject default-parameter expressions that execute arbitrary code at template compilation time. Additionally, _.template uses assignInWith to merge imports, which enumerates inherited properties via for..in. If Object.prototype has been polluted by any other vector, the polluted keys are copied into the imports object and passed to Function(). Patches: Users should upgrade to version 4.18.0. Workarounds: Do not pass untrusted input as key names in options.imports. Only use developer-controlled, static key names. |
| CVE-2025-13465 | 6.9 | 0.01782 | 0.77323 | Lodash versions 4.0.0 through 4.17.22 are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. An attacker can pass crafted paths which cause Lodash to delete methods from global prototypes. The issue permits deletion of properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. This issue is patched on 4.17.23 |
| CVE-2026-2950 | 6.5 | 0.00317 | 0.24918 | Impact: Lodash versions 4.17.23 and earlier are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. The fix for (CVE-2025-13465: https://github.com/lodash/lodash/security/advisories/GHSA-xxjr-mmjv-4gpg) only guards against string key members, so an attacker can bypass the check by passing array-wrapped path segments. This allows deletion of properties from built-in prototypes such as Object.prototype, Number.prototype, and String.prototype. The issue permits deletion of prototype properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. Patches: This issue is patched in 4.18.0. Workarounds: None. Upgrade to the patched version. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-68945 | 8.8 | 0.00122 | 0.02239 | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 20.3.27, 21.2.19, and 22.0.2, HttpTransferCache comma-joins repeated request parameters, allowing semantically distinct HttpClient requests to use the same transfer-cache key and reuse a wrong backend response. This issue is fixed in versions 20.3.27, 21.2.19, and 22.0.2. |
| CVE-2026-54266 | 8.8 | 0.00127 | 0.02689 | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 22.0.1, 21.2.17, and 20.3.25, Angular's HttpTransferCache caches HTTP requests made during Server-Side Rendering (SSR) so that they can be reused during client-side hydration. This avoids repeating the same HTTP requests on the client. The cached responses are stored in TransferState using a cache key generated by hashing request properties (method, response type, mapped URL, serialized body, and sorted query parameters). The cache keys are generated using a weak 32-bit DJB2-like polynomial rolling hash. The 32-bit hash space is extremely small, allowing attackers to find hash collisions. An attacker can easily find a query parameter string (e.g., q=aaCAZMMM for a search request) that produces the exact same 32-bit hash as a sensitive endpoint (e.g., /api/user/profile). When a victim visits a crafted link containing the colliding parameter, the SSR process executes both the search request and the profile request. Due to the hash collision, the search response overwrites the profile response in the TransferState cache. This vulnerability is fixed in 22.0.1, 21.2.17, and 20.3.25. |
| CVE-2026-50168 | 8.8 | 0.00237 | 0.15029 | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 22.0.0-rc.2, 21.2.15, 20.3.22, and 19.2.23, an issue in the @angular/platform-server package allows remote attackers to bypass host allowlist constraints and direct server-side outgoing requests to arbitrary external endpoints. This occurs due to a parser differential between the strict WHATWG URL parser used for allowlist validation and the lenient Domino URL parser used to initialize the server emulated DOM. When a server-side request contains a malformed URL with a double port structure (e.g., http://evil.com:80:80/path), Node's strict URL.canParse(url) logic returns false and skips host check validation entirely. However, the same malformed URL is later accepted and parsed leniently by Domino's internal parser, which resolves the origin to http://evil.com:80. The Angular SSR HTTP request interceptor (relativeUrlsTransformerInterceptorFn) then resolves all relative backend HTTP requests against this adopted origin, executing the SSRF attack. This vulnerability is fixed in 22.0.0-rc.2, 21.2.15, 20.3.22, and 19.2.23. |
| CVE-2026-46417 | 8.8 | 0.00361 | 0.29909 | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 22.0.0-next.12, 21.2.13, 20.3.21, and 19.2.22, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in @angular/platform-server. The issue stems from how the server-side rendering (SSR) engine processes the request URL provided to the rendering entry points. When an absolute-form URL (e.g., http://evil.com) is passed to the rendering engine, the internal ServerPlatformLocation can be manipulated into adopting the attacker-controlled domain as the "current" hostname. Consequently, any relative HttpClient requests or PlatformLocation.hostname references are redirected to the attacker controlled server, potentially exposing internal APIs or metadata services. This vulnerability is fixed in 22.0.0-next.12, 21.2.13, 20.3.21, and 19.2.22. |
| CVE-2026-41423 | 8.7 | 0.00305 | 0.23413 | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.21, 20.3.19, 21.2.9, and 22.0.0-next.8, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in @angular/platform-server due to improper handling of URLs during Server-Side Rendering (SSR). When an attacker sends a request such as GET /\evil.com/ HTTP/1.1 the server engine (Express, etc.) passes the URL string to Angular’s rendering functions. Because the URL parser normalizes the backslash to a forward slash for HTTP/HTTPS schemes, the internal state of the application is hijacked to believe the current origin is evil.com. This misinterpretation tricks the application into treating the attacker’s domain as the local origin. Consequently, any relative HttpClient requests or PlatformLocation.hostname references are redirected to the attacker controlled server, potentially exposing internal APIs or metadata services. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.21, 20.3.19, 21.2.9, and 22.0.0-next.8. |
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
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Angular 11.2.14 | JavaScript frameworks |
| ApexCharts.js | JavaScript graphics |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Google Cloud Load Balancing | Load balancers |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| core-js 3.12.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Lodash 4.17.21 | JavaScript libraries |
| Microsoft Power BI | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| 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
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://inteligencia.hdata.med.br:443/ | 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-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://inteligencia.hdata.med.br:443/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-68945 | 8.8 | 0.00122 | 0.02239 | No | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 20.3.27, 21.2.19, and 22.0.2, HttpTransferCache comma-joins repeated request parameters, allowing semantically distinct HttpClient requests to use the same transfer-cache key and reuse a wrong backend response. This issue is fixed in versions 20.3.27, 21.2.19, and 22.0.2. |
| CVE-2026-54266 | 8.8 | 0.00127 | 0.02689 | No | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 22.0.1, 21.2.17, and 20.3.25, Angular's HttpTransferCache caches HTTP requests made during Server-Side Rendering (SSR) so that they can be reused during client-side hydration. This avoids repeating the same HTTP requests on the client. The cached responses are stored in TransferState using a cache key generated by hashing request properties (method, response type, mapped URL, serialized body, and sorted query parameters). The cache keys are generated using a weak 32-bit DJB2-like polynomial rolling hash. The 32-bit hash space is extremely small, allowing attackers to find hash collisions. An attacker can easily find a query parameter string (e.g., q=aaCAZMMM for a search request) that produces the exact same 32-bit hash as a sensitive endpoint (e.g., /api/user/profile). When a victim visits a crafted link containing the colliding parameter, the SSR process executes both the search request and the profile request. Due to the hash collision, the search response overwrites the profile response in the TransferState cache. This vulnerability is fixed in 22.0.1, 21.2.17, and 20.3.25. |
| CVE-2026-50168 | 8.8 | 0.00237 | 0.15029 | No | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 22.0.0-rc.2, 21.2.15, 20.3.22, and 19.2.23, an issue in the @angular/platform-server package allows remote attackers to bypass host allowlist constraints and direct server-side outgoing requests to arbitrary external endpoints. This occurs due to a parser differential between the strict WHATWG URL parser used for allowlist validation and the lenient Domino URL parser used to initialize the server emulated DOM. When a server-side request contains a malformed URL with a double port structure (e.g., http://evil.com:80:80/path), Node's strict URL.canParse(url) logic returns false and skips host check validation entirely. However, the same malformed URL is later accepted and parsed leniently by Domino's internal parser, which resolves the origin to http://evil.com:80. The Angular SSR HTTP request interceptor (relativeUrlsTransformerInterceptorFn) then resolves all relative backend HTTP requests against this adopted origin, executing the SSRF attack. This vulnerability is fixed in 22.0.0-rc.2, 21.2.15, 20.3.22, and 19.2.23. |
| CVE-2026-46417 | 8.8 | 0.00361 | 0.29909 | No | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to 22.0.0-next.12, 21.2.13, 20.3.21, and 19.2.22, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in @angular/platform-server. The issue stems from how the server-side rendering (SSR) engine processes the request URL provided to the rendering entry points. When an absolute-form URL (e.g., http://evil.com) is passed to the rendering engine, the internal ServerPlatformLocation can be manipulated into adopting the attacker-controlled domain as the "current" hostname. Consequently, any relative HttpClient requests or PlatformLocation.hostname references are redirected to the attacker controlled server, potentially exposing internal APIs or metadata services. This vulnerability is fixed in 22.0.0-next.12, 21.2.13, 20.3.21, and 19.2.22. |
| CVE-2026-41423 | 8.7 | 0.00305 | 0.23413 | No | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.21, 20.3.19, 21.2.9, and 22.0.0-next.8, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in @angular/platform-server due to improper handling of URLs during Server-Side Rendering (SSR). When an attacker sends a request such as GET /\evil.com/ HTTP/1.1 the server engine (Express, etc.) passes the URL string to Angular’s rendering functions. Because the URL parser normalizes the backslash to a forward slash for HTTP/HTTPS schemes, the internal state of the application is hijacked to believe the current origin is evil.com. This misinterpretation tricks the application into treating the attacker’s domain as the local origin. Consequently, any relative HttpClient requests or PlatformLocation.hostname references are redirected to the attacker controlled server, potentially exposing internal APIs or metadata services. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.21, 20.3.19, 21.2.9, and 22.0.0-next.8. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Angular 11.2.14
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-2026-4800 | 8.1 | 0.02759 | 0.85635 | No | Impact: The fix for CVE-2021-23337 (https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm) added validation for the variable option in _.template but did not apply the same validation to options.imports key names. Both paths flow into the same Function() constructor sink. When an application passes untrusted input as options.imports key names, an attacker can inject default-parameter expressions that execute arbitrary code at template compilation time. Additionally, _.template uses assignInWith to merge imports, which enumerates inherited properties via for..in. If Object.prototype has been polluted by any other vector, the polluted keys are copied into the imports object and passed to Function(). Patches: Users should upgrade to version 4.18.0. Workarounds: Do not pass untrusted input as key names in options.imports. Only use developer-controlled, static key names. |
| CVE-2025-13465 | 6.9 | 0.01782 | 0.77323 | No | Lodash versions 4.0.0 through 4.17.22 are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. An attacker can pass crafted paths which cause Lodash to delete methods from global prototypes. The issue permits deletion of properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. This issue is patched on 4.17.23 |
| CVE-2026-2950 | 6.5 | 0.00317 | 0.24918 | No | Impact: Lodash versions 4.17.23 and earlier are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. The fix for (CVE-2025-13465: https://github.com/lodash/lodash/security/advisories/GHSA-xxjr-mmjv-4gpg) only guards against string key members, so an attacker can bypass the check by passing array-wrapped path segments. This allows deletion of properties from built-in prototypes such as Object.prototype, Number.prototype, and String.prototype. The issue permits deletion of prototype properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. Patches: This issue is patched in 4.18.0. Workarounds: None. Upgrade to the patched version. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Lodash 4.17.21
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 that Angular has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 11.2.14 End-of-life date: 2022-05-11 Latest version for the cycle: 11.2.14 This release cycle (11) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2020-11-11 and its latest release date was 2021-05-12. The support ended on 2021-05-11.
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| inteligencia.hdata.med.br | A | IPv4 address | 34.49.176.230 |
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 |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
| ApexCharts.js | JavaScript graphics |
| Google Cloud Load Balancing | Load balancers |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Angular 11.2.14 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Lodash 4.17.21 | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| core-js 3.12.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Microsoft Power BI | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
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.