Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Monitor CFDI |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 162.222.205.19 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Ionos Se |
| asn | AS8560 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.2.4 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.62 |
3000/tcp | http | Node.js Express framework - |
3306/tcp | mysql | MySQL 5.7.41-log |
8080/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.2.4 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4 | Web servers |
| Bootstrap Icons . | Font scripts |
| jQuery 1.1.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| PHP 5.2.1 | Programming languages |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2012-2688 | 10 | 0.10467 | 0.95587 | Unspecified vulnerability in the _php_stream_scandir function in the stream implementation in PHP before 5.3.15 and 5.4.x before 5.4.5 has unknown impact and remote attack vectors, related to an "overflow." |
| CVE-2012-2376 | 10 | 0.19842 | 0.97325 | Buffer overflow in the com_print_typeinfo function in PHP 5.4.3 and earlier on Windows allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted arguments that trigger incorrect handling of COM object VARIANT types, as exploited in the wild in May 2012. |
| CVE-2011-3268 | 10 | 0.05719 | 0.92746 | Buffer overflow in the crypt function in PHP before 5.3.7 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via a long salt argument, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-2483. |
| CVE-2009-4143 | 10 | 0.02946 | 0.86578 | PHP before 5.2.12 does not properly handle session data, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors related to (1) interrupt corruption of the SESSION superglobal array and (2) the session.save_path directive. |
| CVE-2008-5557 | 10 | 0.07371 | 0.94189 | Heap-based buffer overflow in ext/mbstring/libmbfl/filters/mbfilter_htmlent.c in the mbstring extension in PHP 4.3.0 through 5.2.6 allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted string containing an HTML entity, which is not properly handled during Unicode conversion, related to the (1) mb_convert_encoding, (2) mb_check_encoding, (3) mb_convert_variables, and (4) mb_parse_str functions. |
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Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions.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-2010-0425 | 10 | 0.94248 | 0.99847 | modules/arch/win32/mod_isapi.c in mod_isapi in the Apache HTTP Server 2.0.37 through 2.0.63, 2.2.0 through 2.2.14, and 2.3.x before 2.3.7, when running on Windows, does not ensure that request processing is complete before calling isapi_unload for an ISAPI .dll module, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors related to a crafted request, a reset packet, and "orphaned callback pointers." |
| CVE-2026-28780 | 9.8 | 0.01631 | 0.75188 | Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server. If mod_proxy_ajp connects to a malicious AJP server this AJP server can send a malicious AJP message back to mod_proxy_ajp and cause it to write 4 attacker controlled bytes after the end of a heap based buffer. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: through 2.4.66. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.67, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2022-31813 | 9.8 | 0.03543 | 0.8883 | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.53 and earlier may not send the X-Forwarded-* headers to the origin server based on client side Connection header hop-by-hop mechanism. This may be used to bypass IP based authentication on the origin server/application. |
| CVE-2022-22720 | 9.8 | 0.28189 | 0.98047 | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.52 and earlier fails to close inbound connection when errors are encountered discarding the request body, exposing the server to HTTP Request Smuggling |
| CVE-2021-44790 | 9.8 | 0.9684 | 0.99886 | A carefully crafted request body can cause a buffer overflow in the mod_lua multipart parser (r:parsebody() called from Lua scripts). The Apache httpd team is not aware of an exploit for the vulnerabilty though it might be possible to craft one. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server 2.4.51 and earlier. |
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
| URL | Response URL | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | Communication is made over unsecure, unencrypted HTTP. |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the communication between the web browser and the server is done using the HTTP protocol, which transmits data unencrypted over the network.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who manages to intercept the communication at the network level can read and modify the data transmitted (including passwords, secret tokens, credit card information and other sensitive data).
Recommendation
We recommend you to reconfigure the web server to use HTTPS - which encrypts the communication between the web browser and the server.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-319 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | cfdi40pollmannlancontamxpc4d6ded | Set-Cookie: cfdi40pollmannlancontamxpc4d6ded=242438c3e5822706aee7b43b6c6fbc7c |
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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | Password input detected over insecure HTTP. |
Vulnerability description
We found that passwords are transmitted over a network without encryption. When users submit their passwords through an application or system, the lack of encryption means that the sensitive information is transmitted in plaintext, making it susceptible to interception and unauthorized access.
Risk description
The risk is that malicious actors could employ various techniques, such as packet sniffing or man-in-the-middle attacks, to capture plaintext passwords. Once intercepted, the attacker gains unauthorized access to user accounts, potentially leading to identity theft, unauthorized data access, or other malicious activities. The risk remains unchanged even if the password's form submission triggers a redirect response to an HTTPS page.
Recommendation
We recommend you to reconfigure the web server so it uses HTTPS - which encrypts the communication between the web browser and the server. This way, the attacker will not be able to obtain the clear-text passwords, even though he manages to intercept the network communication.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-523 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.84887 | 0.99706 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-7656 | 6.1 | 0.06273 | 0.93318 | jquery prior to 1.9.0 allows Cross-site Scripting attacks via the load method. The load method fails to recognize and remove "<script>" HTML tags that contain a whitespace character, i.e: "</script >", which results in the enclosed script logic to be executed. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.87218 | 0.99747 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
| CVE-2015-9251 | 6.1 | 0.29726 | 0.98135 | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. |
| CVE-2012-6708 | 6.1 | 0.08632 | 0.94909 | jQuery before 1.9.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The jQuery(strInput) function does not differentiate selectors from HTML in a reliable fashion. In vulnerable versions, jQuery determined whether the input was HTML by looking for the '<' character anywhere in the string, giving attackers more flexibility when attempting to construct a malicious payload. In fixed versions, jQuery only deems the input to be HTML if it explicitly starts with the '<' character, limiting exploitability only to attackers who can control the beginning of a string, which is far less common. |
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
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | cfdi40pollmannlancontamxpc4d6ded | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: cfdi40pollmannlancontamxpc4d6ded=242438c3e5822706aee7b43b6c6fbc7c |
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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | 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 |
|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | 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 | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/?canary=ljamnxrhqp | TRACE | We injected a random query parameter inside a HTTP TRACE request. The server responded with a 200 OK HTTP status code and we found the random value reflected in the body of the response. |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with a 200 OK HTTP status when a TRACE/TRACK HTTP request was sent. Originally intended for debugging purposes, these methods respond to requests by echoing back the contents of the request received.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing HTTP headers that have been appended by intermediate proxy servers on the way to the destination. This can present a danger if any of those headers contain sensitive information like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
Generally, it is good practice to disable unused functionality to minimize your attack surface. We recommend that you disable unused HTTP methods, or even better, allow only the ones that you know are used. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-16 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4 | Web servers |
| Bootstrap Icons . | Font scripts |
| jQuery 1.1.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| PHP 5.2.1 | 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 |
|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| http://cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx/ | GET | Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 | Email Address: memo.chavero@gmail.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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44631 | 9.8 | 0.00746 | 0.52798 | No | Buffer Underwrite vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server on crafted regular expressions in the configuration. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.67. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.68, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2026-29167 | 9.8 | 0.00948 | 0.59506 | No | Use After Free vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server with mod_ldap in per-directory configuration This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.67. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.68, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2026-28780 | 9.8 | 0.01631 | 0.75188 | No | Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server. If mod_proxy_ajp connects to a malicious AJP server this AJP server can send a malicious AJP message back to mod_proxy_ajp and cause it to write 4 attacker controlled bytes after the end of a heap based buffer. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: through 2.4.66. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.67, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2026-42535 | 9.1 | 0.0071 | 0.51473 | No | A path handling issue in mod_dav_fs in Apache 2.4.67 and earlier allows a WebDAV content author to directly manipulate trusted DAV property databases, potentially causing child process crashes. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.68, which fixes this issue. |
| CVE-2025-23048 | 9.1 | 0.01005 | 0.61376 | 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. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62
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-2026-28780 | 9.8 | 0.01631 | 0.75188 | No | Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server. If mod_proxy_ajp connects to a malicious AJP server this AJP server can send a malicious AJP message back to mod_proxy_ajp and cause it to write 4 attacker controlled bytes after the end of a heap based buffer. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: through 2.4.66. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.67, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2022-31813 | 9.8 | 0.03543 | 0.8883 | No | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.53 and earlier may not send the X-Forwarded-* headers to the origin server based on client side Connection header hop-by-hop mechanism. This may be used to bypass IP based authentication on the origin server/application. |
| CVE-2022-22720 | 9.8 | 0.28189 | 0.98047 | No | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.52 and earlier fails to close inbound connection when errors are encountered discarding the request body, exposing the server to HTTP Request Smuggling |
| CVE-2021-44790 | 9.8 | 0.9684 | 0.99886 | No | A carefully crafted request body can cause a buffer overflow in the mod_lua multipart parser (r:parsebody() called from Lua scripts). The Apache httpd team is not aware of an exploit for the vulnerabilty though it might be possible to craft one. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server 2.4.51 and earlier. |
| CVE-2010-0425 | 10 | 0.94248 | 0.99847 | No | modules/arch/win32/mod_isapi.c in mod_isapi in the Apache HTTP Server 2.0.37 through 2.0.63, 2.2.0 through 2.2.14, and 2.3.x before 2.3.7, when running on Windows, does not ensure that request processing is complete before calling isapi_unload for an ISAPI .dll module, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors related to a crafted request, a reset packet, and "orphaned callback pointers." |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4
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-2026-6722 | 9.5 | 0.01295 | 0.6906 | No | In PHP versions 8.2.* before 8.2.31, 8.3.* before 8.3.31, 8.4.* before 8.4.21, and 8.5.* before 8.5.6, the SOAP extension's object deduplication mechanism stores pointers to PHP objects in a global map without incrementing their reference counts. When an apache:Map node contains duplicate keys, processing the second entry overwrites the first in the temporary result map, freeing the original PHP object while its stale pointer remains in the map. A subsequent href reference to the freed node can copy the dangling pointer into the result. As PHP string allocations can reclaim the freed memory region, an attacker with control over the SOAP request body can exploit this use-after-free to achieve remote code execution. |
| CVE-2024-11235 | 9.2 | 0.01457 | 0.72349 | No | In PHP versions 8.3.* before 8.3.19 and 8.4.* before 8.4.5, a code sequence involving __set handler or ??= operator and exceptions can lead to a use-after-free vulnerability. If the third party can control the memory layout leading to this, for example by supplying specially crafted inputs to the script, it could lead to remote code execution. |
| CVE-2025-14180 | 8.2 | 0.00697 | 0.50944 | No | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.34, 8.2.* before 8.2.30, 8.3.* before 8.3.29, 8.4.* before 8.4.16, 8.5.* before 8.5.1 when using the PDO PostgreSQL driver with PDO::ATTR_EMULATE_PREPARES enabled, an invalid character sequence (such as \x99) in a prepared statement parameter may cause the quoting function PQescapeStringConn to return NULL, leading to a null pointer dereference in pdo_parse_params() function. This may lead to crashes (segmentation fault) and affect the availability of the target server. |
| CVE-2026-17543 | 8.1 | 0.0033 | 0.23362 | No | Improper escaping of backslashes in attacker-provided parameters would allow for trivial SQL injection in PHP versions from 8.2.* before 8.2.33, from 8.3.* before 8.3.33, from 8.4.* before 8.4.24, and from 8.5.* before 8.5.9. |
| CVE-2025-14179 | 7.4 | 0.00439 | 0.35422 | No | In PHP versions 8.2.* before 8.2.31, 8.3.* before 8.3.31, 8.4.* before 8.4.21, and 8.5.* before 8.5.6, the PDO Firebird driver improperly handles NUL bytes when preparing SQL queries. During token-by-token query construction, a string token containing a NUL byte is copied via strncat(), which stops at the NUL byte, dropping the closing quote and causing subsequent SQL tokens to be interpreted as part of the string. This allows SQL injection when attacker-controlled values are quoted via PDO::quote() and embedded in SQL statements. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 8.3.14
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-2025-15467 | 8.8 | 0.52446 | 0.98925 | No | Issue summary: Parsing CMS AuthEnvelopedData or EnvelopedData message with maliciously crafted AEAD parameters can trigger a stack buffer overflow. Impact summary: A stack buffer overflow may lead to a crash, causing Denial of Service, or potentially remote code execution. When parsing CMS (Auth)EnvelopedData structures that use AEAD ciphers such as AES-GCM, the IV (Initialization Vector) encoded in the ASN.1 parameters is copied into a fixed-size stack buffer without verifying that its length fits the destination. An attacker can supply a crafted CMS message with an oversized IV, causing a stack-based out-of-bounds write before any authentication or tag verification occurs. Applications and services that parse untrusted CMS or PKCS#7 content using AEAD ciphers (e.g., S/MIME (Auth)EnvelopedData with AES-GCM) are vulnerable. Because the overflow occurs prior to authentication, no valid key material is required to trigger it. While exploitability to remote code execution depends on platform and toolchain mitigations, the stack-based write primitive represents a severe risk. The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the CMS implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are not affected by this issue. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for OpenSSL 3.1.7
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-2012-2688 | 10 | 0.10467 | 0.95587 | No | Unspecified vulnerability in the _php_stream_scandir function in the stream implementation in PHP before 5.3.15 and 5.4.x before 5.4.5 has unknown impact and remote attack vectors, related to an "overflow." |
| CVE-2012-2376 | 10 | 0.19842 | 0.97325 | No | Buffer overflow in the com_print_typeinfo function in PHP 5.4.3 and earlier on Windows allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted arguments that trigger incorrect handling of COM object VARIANT types, as exploited in the wild in May 2012. |
| CVE-2011-3268 | 10 | 0.05719 | 0.92746 | No | Buffer overflow in the crypt function in PHP before 5.3.7 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via a long salt argument, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-2483. |
| CVE-2009-4143 | 10 | 0.02946 | 0.86578 | No | PHP before 5.2.12 does not properly handle session data, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors related to (1) interrupt corruption of the SESSION superglobal array and (2) the session.save_path directive. |
| CVE-2008-5557 | 10 | 0.07371 | 0.94189 | No | Heap-based buffer overflow in ext/mbstring/libmbfl/filters/mbfilter_htmlent.c in the mbstring extension in PHP 4.3.0 through 5.2.6 allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted string containing an HTML entity, which is not properly handled during Unicode conversion, related to the (1) mb_convert_encoding, (2) mb_check_encoding, (3) mb_convert_variables, and (4) mb_parse_str functions. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 5.2.1
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-2012-2688 | 10 | 0.10467 | 0.95587 | No | Unspecified vulnerability in the _php_stream_scandir function in the stream implementation in PHP before 5.3.15 and 5.4.x before 5.4.5 has unknown impact and remote attack vectors, related to an "overflow." |
| CVE-2012-2376 | 10 | 0.19842 | 0.97325 | No | Buffer overflow in the com_print_typeinfo function in PHP 5.4.3 and earlier on Windows allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted arguments that trigger incorrect handling of COM object VARIANT types, as exploited in the wild in May 2012. |
| CVE-2011-3268 | 10 | 0.05719 | 0.92746 | No | Buffer overflow in the crypt function in PHP before 5.3.7 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via a long salt argument, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-2483. |
| CVE-2009-4143 | 10 | 0.02946 | 0.86578 | No | PHP before 5.2.12 does not properly handle session data, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors related to (1) interrupt corruption of the SESSION superglobal array and (2) the session.save_path directive. |
| CVE-2008-5557 | 10 | 0.07371 | 0.94189 | No | Heap-based buffer overflow in ext/mbstring/libmbfl/filters/mbfilter_htmlent.c in the mbstring extension in PHP 4.3.0 through 5.2.6 allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted string containing an HTML entity, which is not properly handled during Unicode conversion, related to the (1) mb_convert_encoding, (2) mb_check_encoding, (3) mb_convert_variables, and (4) mb_parse_str functions. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 5.2.1
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-2026-28780 | 9.8 | 0.01631 | 0.75188 | No | Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server. If mod_proxy_ajp connects to a malicious AJP server this AJP server can send a malicious AJP message back to mod_proxy_ajp and cause it to write 4 attacker controlled bytes after the end of a heap based buffer. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: through 2.4.66. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.67, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2022-31813 | 9.8 | 0.03543 | 0.8883 | No | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.53 and earlier may not send the X-Forwarded-* headers to the origin server based on client side Connection header hop-by-hop mechanism. This may be used to bypass IP based authentication on the origin server/application. |
| CVE-2022-22720 | 9.8 | 0.28189 | 0.98047 | No | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.52 and earlier fails to close inbound connection when errors are encountered discarding the request body, exposing the server to HTTP Request Smuggling |
| CVE-2021-44790 | 9.8 | 0.9684 | 0.99886 | No | A carefully crafted request body can cause a buffer overflow in the mod_lua multipart parser (r:parsebody() called from Lua scripts). The Apache httpd team is not aware of an exploit for the vulnerabilty though it might be possible to craft one. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server 2.4.51 and earlier. |
| CVE-2010-0425 | 10 | 0.94248 | 0.99847 | No | modules/arch/win32/mod_isapi.c in mod_isapi in the Apache HTTP Server 2.0.37 through 2.0.63, 2.2.0 through 2.2.14, and 2.3.x before 2.3.7, when running on Windows, does not ensure that request processing is complete before calling isapi_unload for an ISAPI .dll module, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors related to a crafted request, a reset packet, and "orphaned callback pointers." |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4
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-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.84887 | 0.99706 | Yes | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-7656 | 6.1 | 0.06273 | 0.93318 | No | jquery prior to 1.9.0 allows Cross-site Scripting attacks via the load method. The load method fails to recognize and remove "<script>" HTML tags that contain a whitespace character, i.e: "</script >", which results in the enclosed script logic to be executed. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.87218 | 0.99747 | No | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
| CVE-2015-9251 | 6.1 | 0.29726 | 0.98135 | No | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. |
| CVE-2012-6708 | 6.1 | 0.08632 | 0.94909 | No | jQuery before 1.9.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The jQuery(strInput) function does not differentiate selectors from HTML in a reliable fashion. In vulnerable versions, jQuery determined whether the input was HTML by looking for the '<' character anywhere in the string, giving attackers more flexibility when attempting to construct a malicious payload. In fixed versions, jQuery only deems the input to be HTML if it explicitly starts with the '<' character, limiting exploitability only to attackers who can control the beginning of a string, which is far less common. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 1.1.3.1
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-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.84887 | 0.99706 | Yes | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-7656 | 6.1 | 0.06273 | 0.93318 | No | jquery prior to 1.9.0 allows Cross-site Scripting attacks via the load method. The load method fails to recognize and remove "<script>" HTML tags that contain a whitespace character, i.e: "</script >", which results in the enclosed script logic to be executed. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.87218 | 0.99747 | No | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
| CVE-2015-9251 | 6.1 | 0.29726 | 0.98135 | No | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. |
| CVE-2012-6708 | 6.1 | 0.08632 | 0.94909 | No | jQuery before 1.9.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The jQuery(strInput) function does not differentiate selectors from HTML in a reliable fashion. In vulnerable versions, jQuery determined whether the input was HTML by looking for the '<' character anywhere in the string, giving attackers more flexibility when attempting to construct a malicious payload. In fixed versions, jQuery only deems the input to be HTML if it explicitly starts with the '<' character, limiting exploitability only to attackers who can control the beginning of a string, which is far less common. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 1.1.3.1
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 MySQL service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 3306/tcp open mysql MySQL 5.7.41-log
Vulnerability description
We identified that the MySQL service is publicly accessible. MySQL serves as a common database for numerous web applications and services for data storage, making it a potential prime target for determined attackers.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker exploits this issue by launching a password-based attack on the MySQL service. Furthermore, they could exploit zero-day vulnerabilities to obtain remote access to the MySQL database server, thereby gaining complete control over its operating system and associated services. Such an attack could lead to the exposure of confidential or sensitive information.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off public Internet access to MySQL and opting for a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that enforces two-factor authentication (2FA). Avoid enabling direct user authentication to the MySQL service via the Internet, as this could enable attackers to engage in password-guessing and potentially initiate attacks leading to complete control. However, if the MySQL service is required to be directly accessible over the Internet, we recommend reconfiguring it to be accessible only from known IP addresses.
Evidence
We managed to detect that PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.2.1 End-of-life date: 2011-01-06 Latest version for the cycle: 5.2.17 This release cycle (5.2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2006-11-02 and its latest release date was 2011-01-06. The support ended on 2008-11-02.
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 jQuery has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.1.3.1 Latest version for the cycle: 1.12.4 This release cycle (1) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2006-08-31 and its latest release date was 2016-05-20.
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 jQuery has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.1.3.1 Latest version for the cycle: 1.12.4 This release cycle (1) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2006-08-31 and its latest release date was 2016-05-20.
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 OpenSSL has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 3.1.7 End-of-life date: 2025-03-14 Latest version for the cycle: 3.1.8 This release cycle (3.1) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2023-03-14 and its latest release date was 2025-02-11.
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 apache has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 2.2.4 End-of-life date: 2017-07-11 Latest version for the cycle: 2.2.34 This release cycle (2.2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2005-12-01 and its latest release date was 2017-07-11.
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 mysql has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.7.41-log End-of-life date: 2023-10-31 Latest version for the cycle: 5.7.44 This release cycle (5.7) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2015-10-09 and its latest release date was 2023-09-20. The support ended on 2020-10-31.
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 PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.2.1 End-of-life date: 2011-01-06 Latest version for the cycle: 5.2.17 This release cycle (5.2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2006-11-02 and its latest release date was 2011-01-06. The support ended on 2008-11-02.
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 apache has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 2.2.4 End-of-life date: 2017-07-11 Latest version for the cycle: 2.2.34 This release cycle (2.2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2005-12-01 and its latest release date was 2017-07-11.
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP 5.2.1 | Programming languages |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4 | Web servers |
| jQuery 1.1.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Bootstrap Icons . | Font scripts |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| cfdi40.pollmann.lanconta.mx | A | IPv4 address | 162.222.205.19 |
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 |
|---|---|
| PHP 5.2.1 | Programming languages |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.2.4 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Node.js | Programming languages |
| Express | Web frameworks, 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Windows Server 2016 | 92% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP 8.3.14 | Programming languages |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| OpenSSL 3.1.7 | Web server extensions |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62 | Web servers |
| jQuery 1.1.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Bootstrap Icons . | Font scripts |
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.