Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Chic style |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 188.114.96.7 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare Inc |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 188.114.97.7 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare Inc |
| asn | AS13335 |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | Cloudflare http proxy - |
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 | Cloudflare http proxy - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 3.3.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| imagesLoaded 4.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Packery | JavaScript libraries, UI frameworks |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| WordPress 6.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-38000 | 6.5 | 0.00827 | 0.72407 | Auth. Stored (contributor+) Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WordPress core 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.1.3, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7 and Gutenberg plugin <= 16.8.0 versions. |
| CVE-2022-43500 | 6.1 | 0.01125 | 0.76429 | Cross-site scripting vulnerability in WordPress versions prior to 6.0.3 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject an arbitrary script. The developer also provides new patched releases for all versions since 3.7. |
| CVE-2022-43497 | 6.1 | 0.01918 | 0.81851 | Cross-site scripting vulnerability in WordPress versions prior to 6.0.3 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject an arbitrary script. The developer also provides new patched releases for all versions since 3.7. |
| CVE-2022-3590 | 5.9 | 0.44726 | 0.97419 | WordPress is affected by an unauthenticated blind SSRF in the pingback feature. Because of a TOCTOU race condition between the validation checks and the HTTP request, attackers can reach internal hosts that are explicitly forbidden. |
| CVE-2023-2745 | 5.4 | 0.77389 | 0.99057 | WordPress Core is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in versions up to, and including, 6.2, via the ‘wp_lang’ parameter. This allows unauthenticated attackers to access and load arbitrary translation files. In cases where an attacker is able to upload a crafted translation file onto the site, such as via an upload form, this could be also used to perform a Cross-Site Scripting attack. |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| https://chicavora.com/wp-json/ | PHPSESSID, _subid, 6b1cd | Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=hhohtall1mu6h726fmdd50jc3n Set-Cookie: _subid=397uvf13r53c8 Set-Cookie: 6b1cd=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJkYXRhIjoie1wic3RyZWFtc1wiOntcIjE5NDBcIjoxNzYzNTEyNzg3fSxcImNhbXBhaWduc1wiOntcIjI1OFwiOjE3NjM1MTI3ODd9LFwidGltZVwiOjE3NjM1MTI3ODd9In0.4z14Kf20CLF8O2uYLKWBgIni9XbOb2vMEeVzcZhps-Y |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://chicavora.com/wp-json/ | _subid | Set-Cookie: .chicavora.com |
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://chicavora.com/wp-json/ | PHPSESSID, _subid, 6b1cd | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=hhohtall1mu6h726fmdd50jc3n Set-Cookie: _subid=397uvf13r53c8 Set-Cookie: 6b1cd=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJkYXRhIjoie1wic3RyZWFtc1wiOntcIjE5NDBcIjoxNzYzNTEyNzg3fSxcImNhbXBhaWduc1wiOntcIjI1OFwiOjE3NjM1MTI3ODd9LFwidGltZVwiOjE3NjM1MTI3ODd9In0.4z14Kf20CLF8O2uYLKWBgIni9XbOb2vMEeVzcZhps-Y |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 3.3.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| imagesLoaded 4.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Packery | JavaScript libraries, UI frameworks |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| WordPress 6.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| RSS | 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.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://chicavora.com/ | 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-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://chicavora.com/ | 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 |
|---|---|
| https://chicavora.com/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://chicavora.com/ | Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).
Recommendation
The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://chicavora.com/ | 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 | Email Address: info@sensationaltheme.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 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-38000 | 6.5 | 0.00827 | 0.72407 | No | Auth. Stored (contributor+) Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WordPress core 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.1.3, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7 and Gutenberg plugin <= 16.8.0 versions. |
| CVE-2022-43500 | 6.1 | 0.01125 | 0.76429 | No | Cross-site scripting vulnerability in WordPress versions prior to 6.0.3 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject an arbitrary script. The developer also provides new patched releases for all versions since 3.7. |
| CVE-2022-43497 | 6.1 | 0.01918 | 0.81851 | No | Cross-site scripting vulnerability in WordPress versions prior to 6.0.3 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject an arbitrary script. The developer also provides new patched releases for all versions since 3.7. |
| CVE-2022-3590 | 5.9 | 0.44726 | 0.97419 | No | WordPress is affected by an unauthenticated blind SSRF in the pingback feature. Because of a TOCTOU race condition between the validation checks and the HTTP request, attackers can reach internal hosts that are explicitly forbidden. |
| CVE-2023-2745 | 5.4 | 0.77389 | 0.99057 | No | WordPress Core is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in versions up to, and including, 6.2, via the ‘wp_lang’ parameter. This allows unauthenticated attackers to access and load arbitrary translation files. In cases where an attacker is able to upload a crafted translation file onto the site, such as via an upload form, this could be also used to perform a Cross-Site Scripting attack. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 6.0
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-2023-38000 | 6.5 | 0.00827 | 0.72407 | No | Auth. Stored (contributor+) Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WordPress core 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.1.3, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7 and Gutenberg plugin <= 16.8.0 versions. |
| CVE-2022-43500 | 6.1 | 0.01125 | 0.76429 | No | Cross-site scripting vulnerability in WordPress versions prior to 6.0.3 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject an arbitrary script. The developer also provides new patched releases for all versions since 3.7. |
| CVE-2022-43497 | 6.1 | 0.01918 | 0.81851 | No | Cross-site scripting vulnerability in WordPress versions prior to 6.0.3 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject an arbitrary script. The developer also provides new patched releases for all versions since 3.7. |
| CVE-2022-3590 | 5.9 | 0.44726 | 0.97419 | No | WordPress is affected by an unauthenticated blind SSRF in the pingback feature. Because of a TOCTOU race condition between the validation checks and the HTTP request, attackers can reach internal hosts that are explicitly forbidden. |
| CVE-2023-2745 | 5.4 | 0.77389 | 0.99057 | No | WordPress Core is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in versions up to, and including, 6.2, via the ‘wp_lang’ parameter. This allows unauthenticated attackers to access and load arbitrary translation files. In cases where an attacker is able to upload a crafted translation file onto the site, such as via an upload form, this could be also used to perform a Cross-Site Scripting attack. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 6.0
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect that WordPress has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 6.0 End-of-life date: 2022-11-01 Latest version for the cycle: 6.0.11 This release cycle (6.0) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2022-05-24 and its latest release date was 2025-09-30.
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 found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: chase.ns.cloudflare.com, ruth.ns.cloudflare.com
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Packery | JavaScript libraries, UI frameworks |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.3.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 4.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| 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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 92% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| 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.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| chicavora.com | A | IPv4 address | 188.114.97.7 |
| chicavora.com | A | IPv4 address | 188.114.96.7 |
| chicavora.com | NS | Name server | chase.ns.cloudflare.com |
| chicavora.com | NS | Name server | ruth.ns.cloudflare.com |
| chicavora.com | SOA | Start of Authority | chase.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2388429870 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| chicavora.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a06:98c1:3120::7 |
| chicavora.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a06:98c1:3121::7 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Packery | JavaScript libraries, UI frameworks |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.3.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 4.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| 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.