Vulnerability Scan Result

Title: | Earth Consulting & Services |
Description: | No description found |
ip_address | 91.234.195.128 |
country | FR ![]() |
network_name | Groupe LWS SARL |
asn | AS210403 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
53/tcp | domain | ISC BIND 9.11.36 |
80/tcp | http | OpenResty web app server 1.27.1.2 |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | OpenResty web app server 1.27.1.2 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
2078/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2080/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2082/tcp | http | - - |
2083/tcp | https | - - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
Contact Form 7 5.5.3 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
Magnific Popup 6.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
Font Awesome | Font scripts |
Bootstrap 3.2.0 | UI frameworks |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
core-js 3.39.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
GSAP | JavaScript frameworks |
imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Isotope | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
MailChimp | Marketing automation, Email |
Google Maps | Maps |
MySQL | Databases |
prettyPhoto | JavaScript libraries |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
PHP | Programming languages |
Popper | Miscellaneous |
Skrollr 0.6.29 | JavaScript libraries |
Redux Framework 4.2.11 | WordPress plugins |
Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
WooCommerce 6.8.3 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
WordPress 6.8.3 | CMS, Blogs |
wpBakery | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
MailChimp for WordPress 4.8.6 | WordPress plugins, Marketing automation |
RSS | Miscellaneous |
Slider Revolution 6.5.8 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2024-6484 | 6.4 | 0.00049 | 0.15167 | A vulnerability has been identified in Bootstrap that exposes users to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The issue is present in the carousel component, where the data-slide and data-slide-to attributes can be exploited through the href attribute of an <a> tag due to inadequate sanitization. This vulnerability could potentially enable attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript within the victim's browser. |
CVE-2019-8331 | 6.1 | 0.02292 | 0.84087 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.1 and 4.3.x before 4.3.1, XSS is possible in the tooltip or popover data-template attribute. |
CVE-2018-20677 | 6.1 | 0.12064 | 0.93443 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.0, XSS is possible in the affix configuration target property. |
CVE-2018-20676 | 6.1 | 0.06255 | 0.90444 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.0, XSS is possible in the tooltip data-viewport attribute. |
CVE-2018-14042 | 6.1 | 0.017 | 0.81556 | In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the data-container property of tooltip. |
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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
Contact Form 7 5.5.3 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
Magnific Popup 6.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
Font Awesome | Font scripts |
Bootstrap 3.2.0 | UI frameworks |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
core-js 3.39.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
GSAP | JavaScript frameworks |
imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Isotope | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
MailChimp | Marketing automation, Email |
Google Maps | Maps |
MySQL | Databases |
prettyPhoto | JavaScript libraries |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
PHP | Programming languages |
Popper | Miscellaneous |
Skrollr 0.6.29 | JavaScript libraries |
Redux Framework 4.2.11 | WordPress plugins |
Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
WooCommerce 6.8.3 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
WordPress 6.8.3 | CMS, Blogs |
wpBakery | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
MailChimp for WordPress 4.8.6 | WordPress plugins, Marketing automation |
RSS | Miscellaneous |
Slider Revolution 6.5.8 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
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.
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://www.earthconsulting-services.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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://www.earthconsulting-services.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 |
|
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application is serving mixed content. This occurs when initial HTML is loaded over a secure HTTPS connection, but other resources (such as images, videos, stylesheets, scripts) are loaded over an insecure HTTP connection. This is called mixed content because both HTTP and HTTPS content are being loaded to display the same page, and the initial request was secure over HTTPS.
Risk description
The risk is that the insecurely loaded resources (HTTP) on an otherwise secure page (HTTPS) can be intercepted or manipulated by attackers, potentially leading to eavesdropping or content tampering.
Recommendation
Ensure that all external resources the page references are loaded using HTTPS.
Classification
CWE | CWE-311 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://www.earthconsulting-services.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 | Evidence |
---|---|
https://www.earthconsulting-services.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://www.earthconsulting-services.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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
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.
Evidence
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://www.earthconsulting-services.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: contact@earthconsulting-services.com |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
CWE | CWE-200 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2023-50387 | 7.5 | 0.42223 | 0.97272 | No | Certain DNSSEC aspects of the DNS protocol (in RFC 4033, 4034, 4035, 6840, and related RFCs) allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via one or more DNSSEC responses, aka the "KeyTrap" issue. One of the concerns is that, when there is a zone with many DNSKEY and RRSIG records, the protocol specification implies that an algorithm must evaluate all combinations of DNSKEY and RRSIG records. |
CVE-2023-4408 | 7.5 | 0.00295 | 0.524 | No | The DNS message parsing code in `named` includes a section whose computational complexity is overly high. It does not cause problems for typical DNS traffic, but crafted queries and responses may cause excessive CPU load on the affected `named` instance by exploiting this flaw. This issue affects both authoritative servers and recursive resolvers. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.0.0 through 9.16.45, 9.18.0 through 9.18.21, 9.19.0 through 9.19.19, 9.9.3-S1 through 9.11.37-S1, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.16.45-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.21-S1. |
CVE-2023-3341 | 7.5 | 0.00287 | 0.51774 | No | The code that processes control channel messages sent to `named` calls certain functions recursively during packet parsing. Recursion depth is only limited by the maximum accepted packet size; depending on the environment, this may cause the packet-parsing code to run out of available stack memory, causing `named` to terminate unexpectedly. Since each incoming control channel message is fully parsed before its contents are authenticated, exploiting this flaw does not require the attacker to hold a valid RNDC key; only network access to the control channel's configured TCP port is necessary. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.2.0 through 9.16.43, 9.18.0 through 9.18.18, 9.19.0 through 9.19.16, 9.9.3-S1 through 9.16.43-S1, and 9.18.0-S1 through 9.18.18-S1. |
CVE-2023-2828 | 7.5 | 0.00869 | 0.74356 | No | Every `named` instance configured to run as a recursive resolver maintains a cache database holding the responses to the queries it has recently sent to authoritative servers. The size limit for that cache database can be configured using the `max-cache-size` statement in the configuration file; it defaults to 90% of the total amount of memory available on the host. When the size of the cache reaches 7/8 of the configured limit, a cache-cleaning algorithm starts to remove expired and/or least-recently used RRsets from the cache, to keep memory use below the configured limit. It has been discovered that the effectiveness of the cache-cleaning algorithm used in `named` can be severely diminished by querying the resolver for specific RRsets in a certain order, effectively allowing the configured `max-cache-size` limit to be significantly exceeded. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.41, 9.18.0 through 9.18.15, 9.19.0 through 9.19.13, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.41-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.15-S1. |
CVE-2022-38178 | 7.5 | 0.01236 | 0.78461 | No | By spoofing the target resolver with responses that have a malformed EdDSA signature, an attacker can trigger a small memory leak. It is possible to gradually erode available memory to the point where named crashes for lack of resources. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Isc Bind 9.11.36
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp Pure-FTPd
Vulnerability description
We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.dnshostservices.com, ns3.dnshostservices.com, ns4.dnshostservices.com, ns2.dnshostservices.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
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
www.earthconsulting-services.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:91.234.195.128 ip4:91.234.195.186 include:premiumsmtp.dnshostservices.com +a +mx ~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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Basic | 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.
Evidence
Operating System | Accuracy |
---|---|
Linux 4.4 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
www.earthconsulting-services.com | A | IPv4 address | 91.234.195.128 |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | NS | Name server | ns1.dnshostservices.com |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | NS | Name server | ns3.dnshostservices.com |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | NS | Name server | ns4.dnshostservices.com |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | NS | Name server | ns2.dnshostservices.com |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | MX | Mail server | 0 mail.earthconsulting-services.com |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.dnshostservices.com. cpanel-sysadmin.lws.info. 2025101501 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a00:7ee0:9:3:54:1:0:73 |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:91.234.195.128 ip4:91.234.195.186 include:premiumsmtp.dnshostservices.com +a +mx ~all" |
www.earthconsulting-services.com | CNAME | Canonical name | earthconsulting-services.com |
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 |
---|---|
cPanel | Hosting panels |
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 6.8.3 | CMS, Blogs |
Slider Revolution 6.5.8 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
Google Maps | Maps |
Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
Contact Form 7 5.5.3 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
wpBakery | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
Redux Framework 4.2.11 | WordPress plugins |
WooCommerce 6.8.3 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
MailChimp | Marketing automation, Email |
prettyPhoto | JavaScript libraries |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
Magnific Popup 6.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
MailChimp for WordPress 4.8.6 | WordPress plugins, Marketing automation |
Popper | Miscellaneous |
Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
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 |
---|---|
Basic | 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.