Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://cutt.ly/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://cutt.ly/

Submitted: May 06, 2026 from CZ

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

medium

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	URL Shortener with Branded Short Links & QR Codes \| Cuttly
Description:	URL Shortener with branded short links & QR Codes. Shorten long URLs instantly, track every click. Link in Bio, Campaigns, Surveys and Teams in one platform.

IP Information

ip_address	172.66.145.80
country	-
network_name	Cloudflare, Inc.
asn	AS13335

ip_address	104.20.37.138
country	-
network_name	Cloudflare, Inc.
asn	AS13335

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
443/tcp	https	cloudflare -
2082/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
2083/tcp	https	nginx -
2086/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
2087/tcp	https	nginx -
8080/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
8443/tcp	https-alt	cloudflare -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
AngularJS	JavaScript frameworks
Google Font API	Font scripts
Bootstrap 4.6.2	UI frameworks
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
jQuery 3.7.1	JavaScript libraries
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
PWA	Miscellaneous
Cloudflare	CDN
Cloudflare Turnstile	Security
HSTS	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://cutt.ly/	PHPSESSID	The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=ftp13rle57eqnft3cr2dkj8h4v

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
https://cutt.ly/resources/blog/cuttly-global-url-shortener-alternative	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

Software / Version	Category
AngularJS	JavaScript frameworks
Google Font API	Font scripts
Bootstrap 4.6.2	UI frameworks
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
jQuery 3.7.1	JavaScript libraries
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
PWA	Miscellaneous
Cloudflare	CDN
Cloudflare Turnstile	Security
HSTS	Security

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.

Classification

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

Evidence

URL Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://cutt.ly/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:`script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'.`

https://cutt.ly/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.

Risk description

For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.

Recommendation

Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1021
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://cutt.ly/register	`<input type="email" id="email" name="email" placeholder="Your email" required> <input type="password" id="password" name="password" placeholder="Enter your password" pattern="^(?=^.{12,}$)(?=.[0-9])(?=.[A-Z])(?=.[a-z])(?!.\s).*$" required> <button type="submit">Create an account</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
Missing: https://cutt.ly/.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

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
mail	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAoeyXcAk68YtfJr974hyZAbp+vL1Uuj4PYWZEECYLZCRaDXbuUbz1trq2CtWe2cfuPmeicesTzK2yiF7qBraoUEOmZx2n/mSB85tb+jhl13FByGkqxhJW/+k9qXCmVzljNNoVXOxJilbun7ho5fy/PoLCOc7ZcTvBo6NqnqKSUX9DoINZ9UYEnmLp8COE4YbEj" "egMgSnJhg93oNZGFMyQHZE+C4eRV6D5/n8DKc0UVsedTD1/7rCiCxKwrwHILSUW9Vpcc3yoQxH5AXMpQ+8NGqLMUJeh2oQIX5TrEcmT+tVpTSmK0YrePEgLeWi3OrEcXRH4GqYJB+6LaOyTrxB6xQIDAQAB"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.

Risk description

Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.

Recommendation

We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.cutt.ly	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.

Risk description

Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.cutt.ly	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100;"

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
_dmarc.cutt.ly	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.

Risk description

The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Cloudflare	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.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
cutt.ly	A	IPv4 address	104.20.37.138
cutt.ly	A	IPv4 address	172.66.145.80
cutt.ly	NS	Name server	june.ns.cloudflare.com
cutt.ly	NS	Name server	ruben.ns.cloudflare.com
cutt.ly	MX	Mail server	1 mx2.iq.pl
cutt.ly	MX	Mail server	5 mail.iq.pl
cutt.ly	SOA	Start of Authority	june.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2402957429 10000 2400 604800 1800
cutt.ly	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:10::ac42:9150
cutt.ly	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:10::6814:258a
cutt.ly	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=teSYBNU4BseciatKpSeK42EJZMvlH2appyW2-nQPUCw"
cutt.ly	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 a mx ip4:86.111.240.0/21 ip4:46.248.190.0/24 ip4:46.248.172.0/24 -all"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issue "comodoca.com"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issue "digicert.com; cansignhttpexchanges=yes"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issue "pki.goog; cansignhttpexchanges=yes"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issue "ssl.com"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issuewild "comodoca.com"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issuewild "digicert.com; cansignhttpexchanges=yes"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issuewild "letsencrypt.org"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issuewild "pki.goog; cansignhttpexchanges=yes"
cutt.ly	CAA	Certificate Authority Authorization	0 issuewild "ssl.com"
_dmarc.cutt.ly	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100;"

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	Programming languages
Bootstrap	UI frameworks
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
HSTS	Security
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
cutt.ly	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 a mx ip4:86.111.240.0/21 ip4:46.248.190.0/24 ip4:46.248.172.0/24 -all"

Operating System	Accuracy
FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE	91%

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
mail	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAoeyXcAk68YtfJr974hyZAbp+vL1Uuj4PYWZEECYLZCRaDXbuUbz1trq2CtWe2cfuPmeicesTzK2yiF7qBraoUEOmZx2n/mSB85tb+jhl13FByGkqxhJW/+k9qXCmVzljNNoVXOxJilbun7ho5fy/PoLCOc7ZcTvBo6NqnqKSUX9DoINZ9UYEnmLp8COE4YbEj" "egMgSnJhg93oNZGFMyQHZE+C4eRV6D5/n8DKc0UVsedTD1/7rCiCxKwrwHILSUW9Vpcc3yoQxH5AXMpQ+8NGqLMUJeh2oQIX5TrEcmT+tVpTSmK0YrePEgLeWi3OrEcXRH4GqYJB+6LaOyTrxB6xQIDAQAB"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Cloudflare	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.

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Cloudflare	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.