Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Лизинг для юридических лиц и ИП — Альфа-Лизинг |
| Description: | Лизинг авто для юридических лиц 🔻 Выгодные условия 🔻 Калькулятор лизинга автомобиля для юридических лиц на официальном сайте компании Альфа-Лизинг. |
| ip_address | 51.250.114.61 |
| country | RU  |
| network_name | Yandex.Cloud LLC |
| asn | AS200350 |
80/tcp | http | ycalb - |
443/tcp | https | ycalb - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Yandex.Cloud | PaaS |
| Yandex.Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Yandex SmartCaptcha | Security |
| Emotion | JavaScript frameworks, Development |
| Loadable-Components | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
| Yandex.Metrika | Analytics |
| Mindbox | Marketing automation |
| Material UI | UI frameworks |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Next.js 14.2.35 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Snowplow Analytics | Analytics, IaaS |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44578 | 8.6 | 0.04004 | 0.88554 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 13.4.13 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, self-hosted applications using the built-in Node.js server can be vulnerable to server-side request forgery through crafted WebSocket upgrade requests. An attacker can cause the server to proxy requests to arbitrary internal or external destinations, which may expose internal services or cloud metadata endpoints. Vercel-hosted deployments are not affected. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
| CVE-2026-44573 | 7.5 | 0.0004 | 0.12135 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 12.2.0 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, Applications using the Pages Router with i18n configured and middleware/proxy-based authorization can allow unauthorized access to protected page data through locale-less /_next/data/<buildId>/<page>.json requests. In affected configurations, middleware does not run for the unprefixed data route, allowing an attacker to retrieve SSR JSON for protected pages without passing the intended authorization checks. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
| CVE-2026-27980 | 6.9 | 0.00022 | 0.06472 | 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 | 0.09224 | 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-2026-44580 | 6.1 | 0.00011 | 0.01522 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 13.0.0 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, applications that use beforeInteractive scripts together with untrusted content can be vulnerable to cross-site scripting. In affected versions, serialized script content was not escaped safely before being embedded into the document, which could allow attacker-controlled input to break out of the intended script context and execute arbitrary JavaScript in a visitor's browser. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
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://alfaleasing.ru/ | _yasc | Set-Cookie: .alfaleasing.ru |
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://alfaleasing.ru/ | _yasc | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: _yasc=A1j0XeIRoafxWCvWWs4VGr7nq1U++od9dapBVNEqVnEDsNB0XwAcUDTg8MhDS4wu |
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
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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://alfaleasing.ru/ | 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://alfaleasing.ru/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Yandex.Cloud | PaaS |
| Yandex.Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Yandex SmartCaptcha | Security |
| Emotion | JavaScript frameworks, Development |
| Loadable-Components | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
| Yandex.Metrika | Analytics |
| Mindbox | Marketing automation |
| Material UI | UI frameworks |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Next.js 14.2.35 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Snowplow Analytics | Analytics, IaaS |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
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://alfaleasing.ru/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://alfaleasing.ru/ | 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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://alfaleasing.ru/ | 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: cs@alfaleasing.ru |
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 |
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
We checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.reg.ru, ns2.reg.ru
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc-q1@alfaleasing.ru;ruf=mailto:ruf@alfaleasing.ru" |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Material UI | UI frameworks |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Snowplow Analytics | Analytics, IaaS |
| Yandex SmartCaptcha | Security |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Yandex.Metrika | Analytics |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| alfaleasing.ru | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx ip4:83.242.107.244 ip4:83.242.107.245 ip4:77.105.154.9 ip4:83.242.107.242 include:spf.unisender.com include:spf.mindbox.ru -all" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| alfaleasing.ru | A | IPv4 address | 51.250.114.61 |
| alfaleasing.ru | NS | Name server | ns1.reg.ru |
| alfaleasing.ru | NS | Name server | ns2.reg.ru |
| alfaleasing.ru | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.alfaleasing.ru |
| alfaleasing.ru | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.reg.ru. hostmaster.ns1.reg.ru. 1778139058 14400 3600 604800 3600 |
| alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "MS=ms31513450" |
| alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "mailru-domain: 8EuNDp5XOIHcJUU5" |
| alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "mailru-verification: 5b8c42c7a1a912fd" |
| alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "mailru-verification: a2dcbcaae5d75128" |
| alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "yandex-verification: 7d3df911916fc443" |
| alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=2PrAjHscKM-dPqEH-b4_d9Ekt1MoftwzpgkXdfbn030" |
| alfaleasing.ru | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx ip4:83.242.107.244 ip4:83.242.107.245 ip4:77.105.154.9 ip4:83.242.107.242 include:spf.unisender.com include:spf.mindbox.ru -all" |
| _dmarc.alfaleasing.ru | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc-q1@alfaleasing.ru;ruf=mailto:ruf@alfaleasing.ru" |
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.