Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://ecnavi.jp/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://ecnavi.jp/

Submitted: May 05, 2026 from SA

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

medium

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	ポイントサイトの副業でお小遣い稼ぎ - ECナビ
Description:	ECナビは、日本最大級のポイントサイトです。ネットショッピングやアンケート、無料会員登録やミニゲームなどで現金や電子マネー、ギフト券などと交換できるポイントが貰えます。副業、副収入にも最適。毎日ポイントをゲットして、カンタンお小遣いかせぎしよう！

IP Information

ip_address	3.161.82.89
country	US
network_name	Amazon.com, Inc.
asn	AS16509

ip_address	3.161.82.105
country	US
network_name	Amazon.com, Inc.
asn	AS16509

ip_address	3.161.82.82
country	US
network_name	Amazon.com, Inc.
asn	AS16509

ip_address	3.161.82.28
country	US
network_name	Amazon.com, Inc.
asn	AS16509

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	Amazon CloudFront httpd -
443/tcp	https	- -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
AccessTrade	Affiliate programs
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
AWS Certificate Manager	SSL/TLS certificate authorities
Amazon CloudFront	CDN
Microsoft Clarity	Analytics
Funding Choices	Cookie compliance
Google Publisher Tag	Advertising
Google Font API	Font scripts
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
Apache HTTP Server	Web servers
JANet	Affiliate programs
jQuery 1.8.3	JavaScript libraries
MySQL	Databases
Next.js 14.2.35	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
Piwik PRO Core	Analytics
Prebid 9.17.0	Advertising
React	JavaScript frameworks
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
Webpack	Miscellaneous
WordPress	CMS, Blogs
A8.net	Affiliate programs
Cloudflare Turnstile	Security
Datadog	RUM, Analytics
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security
ValueCommerce	Affiliate programs

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	Summary
CVE-2026-27980	6.9	0.00022	0.06227	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 10.0.0 and prior to version 16.1.7, the default Next.js image optimization disk cache (`/_next/image`) did not have a configurable upper bound, allowing unbounded cache growth. An attacker could generate many unique image-optimization variants and exhaust disk space, causing denial of service. This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by adding an LRU-backed disk cache with `images.maximumDiskCacheSize`, including eviction of least-recently-used entries when the limit is exceeded. Setting `maximumDiskCacheSize: 0` disables disk caching. If upgrading is not immediately possible, periodically clean `.next/cache/images` and/or reduce variant cardinality (e.g., tighten values for `images.localPatterns`, `images.remotePatterns`, and `images.qualities`).
CVE-2026-29057	6.3	0.00031	0.08924	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 9.5.0 and prior to versions 15.5.13 and 16.1.7, when Next.js rewrites proxy traffic to an external backend, a crafted `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` request using `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` could trigger request boundary disagreement between the proxy and backend. This could allow request smuggling through rewritten routes. An attacker could smuggle a second request to unintended backend routes (for example, internal/admin endpoints), bypassing assumptions that only the configured rewrite destination/path is reachable. This does not impact applications hosted on providers that handle rewrites at the CDN level, such as Vercel. The vulnerability originated in an upstream library vendored by Next.js. It is fixed in Next.js 15.5.13 and 16.1.7 by updating that dependency’s behavior so `content-length: 0` is added only when both `content-length` and `transfer-encoding` are absent, and `transfer-encoding` is no longer removed in that code path. If upgrading is not immediately possible, block chunked `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` requests on rewritten routes at the edge/proxy, and/or enforce authentication/authorization on backend routes.
CVE-2025-59471	5.9	0.00027	0.07652	A denial of service vulnerability exists in self-hosted Next.js applications that have `remotePatterns` configured for the Image Optimizer. The image optimization endpoint (`/_next/image`) loads external images entirely into memory without enforcing a maximum size limit, allowing an attacker to cause out-of-memory conditions by requesting optimization of arbitrarily large images. This vulnerability requires that `remotePatterns` is configured to allow image optimization from external domains and that the attacker can serve or control a large image on an allowed domain. Strongly consider upgrading to 15.5.10 or 16.1.5 to reduce risk and prevent availability issues in Next applications.

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-2020-11023	6.9	0.59045	0.98242	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-2020-11022	6.9	0.02456	0.8528	In jQuery starting with 1.12.0 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML 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	0.01105	0.78176	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	0.02426	0.85201	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	0.27164	0.96407	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.

Vulnerability description

Risk description

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
https://ecnavi.jp:443/	Apache	The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: Apache=9a40e356.6510862a0eef7

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	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://ecnavi.jp:443/monitor/tentamemonitor/	LOGIN_SESSION	Set-Cookie: .ecnavi.jp

Vulnerability description

We found that the target application sets cookies with a domain scope that is too broad. Specifically, cookies intended for use within a particular application are configured in such a way that they can be accessed by multiple subdomains of the same primary domain.

Risk description

The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com, hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from the main site.

Recommendation

The `Domain` attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to `Domain=app.mysite.com`

Classification

CWE	CWE-614
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://ecnavi.jp:443/	Apache	Set-Cookie: Apache=9a40e356.6510862a0eef7

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
https://ecnavi.jp:443/	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
https://ecnavi.jp:443/robots.txt

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
AccessTrade	Affiliate programs
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
AWS Certificate Manager	SSL/TLS certificate authorities
Amazon CloudFront	CDN
Microsoft Clarity	Analytics
Funding Choices	Cookie compliance
Google Publisher Tag	Advertising
Google Font API	Font scripts
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
Apache HTTP Server	Web servers
JANet	Affiliate programs
jQuery 1.8.3	JavaScript libraries
MySQL	Databases
Next.js 14.2.35	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
Piwik PRO Core	Analytics
Prebid 9.17.0	Advertising
React	JavaScript frameworks
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
Webpack	Miscellaneous
WordPress	CMS, Blogs
A8.net	Affiliate programs
Cloudflare Turnstile	Security
Datadog	RUM, Analytics
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security
ValueCommerce	Affiliate programs

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://ecnavi.jp:443/	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

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://ecnavi.jp:443/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.

Risk description

The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.

Recommendation

The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://ecnavi.jp:443/monitor/tentamemonitor/	`<input class="c_input" type="text" name="email" maxlength="255" tabindex="11" value=""> <input class="c_input" type="password" name="passwd" maxlength="100" tabindex="12" autocomplete="off"> <button class="c_button c_red c_w110 c_large" type="submit" tabindex="14">ログイン</button>`

Vulnerability description

We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.

Recommendation

Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.

Classification

CWE	CWE-287
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://ecnavi.jp:443/	GET	Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36	Operating system paths found in the HTTP response: `/help/etc/etc_environment/137`

Vulnerability description

We found operating system paths returned in a HTTP response.

Risk description

The risk is that path disclosure may help an attacker learn more about the remote server's file system, thus increasing the effectiveness and precision of any future attacks.

Recommendation

Configure the web server to avoid leaking path information by using generic error messages that do not reveal any internal file paths. Make sure no server file is referred with its absolute path in the website code.

Classification

CWE	CWE-200
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://ecnavi.jp/.well-known/security.txt/

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

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.ecnavi.jp	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@ecnavi.jp; ruf=mailto:dmarc@ecnavi.jp;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.

Risk description

Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.

Recommendation

To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
ecnavi.jp	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:spf.voyagegr.info include:_spf.google.com include:voyage.maildealer.jp include:voyage.spf.cuenote.jp include:amazonses.com ~all"

Vulnerability description

We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.

Risk description

The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.

Recommendation

We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.ecnavi.jp	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@ecnavi.jp; ruf=mailto:dmarc@ecnavi.jp;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.

Risk description

Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.

Recommendation

We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
m1	rsa	1296	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDhNALSEwt0sQB/AIfaAKtqV2c5CgE+JoRsot9s69oV67EW/Ar5tJ1DOm9JPsTpm1FOvmaS6kxD9a1pSkOueWYTf7+0Hjy3Lb/xwRZ1SzvgRDtRKFQP9LR57DpH5JGj3i9M9nEgXzdW1BH0nHazpkswzr2s4HVaIjsBWuYRzceBCwIDAQAB"

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
ecnavi.jp	A	IPv4 address	13.227.231.44
ecnavi.jp	A	IPv4 address	13.227.231.92
ecnavi.jp	A	IPv4 address	13.227.231.128
ecnavi.jp	A	IPv4 address	13.227.231.21
ecnavi.jp	NS	Name server	ns-1247.awsdns-27.org
ecnavi.jp	NS	Name server	ns-2041.awsdns-63.co.uk
ecnavi.jp	NS	Name server	ns-214.awsdns-26.com
ecnavi.jp	NS	Name server	ns-625.awsdns-14.net
ecnavi.jp	MX	Mail server	10 aspmx.l.google.com
ecnavi.jp	MX	Mail server	20 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
ecnavi.jp	MX	Mail server	20 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
ecnavi.jp	MX	Mail server	30 aspmx2.googlemail.com
ecnavi.jp	MX	Mail server	30 aspmx3.googlemail.com
ecnavi.jp	MX	Mail server	30 aspmx4.googlemail.com
ecnavi.jp	MX	Mail server	30 aspmx5.googlemail.com
ecnavi.jp	SOA	Start of Authority	ns-1247.awsdns-27.org. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400
ecnavi.jp	TXT	Text record	"71p9yp3n8m6rskxt0qdfczf7yc7qm3fk"
ecnavi.jp	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=iMKP3pAOVBPqUawcf6QAw_OHNUzW6CXRXT9y0zDbE-k"
ecnavi.jp	TXT	Text record	"nrd0hqthhz367c9p0b6mr5r5qrthdf3n"
ecnavi.jp	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:spf.voyagegr.info include:_spf.google.com include:voyage.maildealer.jp include:voyage.spf.cuenote.jp include:amazonses.com ~all"
_dmarc.ecnavi.jp	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@ecnavi.jp; ruf=mailto:dmarc@ecnavi.jp;"

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.

Operating System	Accuracy
Crestron XPanel control system	87%

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
WordPress	CMS, Blogs
MySQL	Databases
PHP	Programming languages
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Apache HTTP Server	Web servers
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Google Publisher Tag	Advertising
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
Funding Choices	Cookie compliance
A8.net	Affiliate programs
Piwik PRO Core	Analytics
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
HSTS	Security
AWS Certificate Manager	SSL/TLS certificate authorities
Amazon CloudFront	CDN

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.