Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | AI Security News // terminal |
| Description: | Discover, analyze, and track AI security research papers from arXiv. |
| ip_address | 82.165.127.164 |
| country | DE  |
| network_name | Ionos Se |
| asn | AS8560 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| Next.js 14.2.18 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-29927 | 9.1 | 0.98378 | 0.99911 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 1.11.4 and prior to versions 12.3.5, 13.5.9, 14.2.25, and 15.2.3, it is possible to bypass authorization checks within a Next.js application, if the authorization check occurs in middleware. If patching to a safe version is infeasible, it is recommend that you prevent external user requests which contain the x-middleware-subrequest header from reaching your Next.js application. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.3.5, 13.5.9, 14.2.25, and 15.2.3. |
| CVE-2026-44578 | 8.6 | 0.37756 | 0.98347 | 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 | 0.00351 | 0.2687 | 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-2025-67779 | 7.5 | 0.1888 | 0.9692 | It was found that the fix addressing CVE-2025-55184 in React Server Components was incomplete and does not prevent a denial of service attack in a specific case. React Server Components versions 19.0.2, 19.1.3 and 19.2.2 are affected, allowing unsafe deserialization of payloads from HTTP requests to Server Function endpoints. This can cause an infinite loop that hangs the server process and may prevent future HTTP requests from being served. |
| CVE-2025-55184 | 7.5 | 0.65592 | 0.99163 | A pre-authentication denial of service vulnerability exists in React Server Components versions 19.0.0, 19.0.1 19.1.0, 19.1.1, 19.1.2, 19.2.0 and 19.2.1, including the following packages: react-server-dom-parcel, react-server-dom-turbopack, and react-server-dom-webpack. The vulnerable code unsafely deserializes payloads from HTTP requests to Server Function endpoints, which can cause an infinite loop that hangs the server process and may prevent future HTTP requests from being served. |
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 |
|---|---|
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| Next.js 14.2.18 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| 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
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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://hacking-and-security.de/register | 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 | The following form sends inputs of type password plainly in the URL: |
Vulnerability description
We found a form which is submitted using a GET method and has inputs of the type password. The end result is that passwords are submitted in URLs.
Risk description
Passwords submitted in URLs have a higher chance of being leaked. The main reason is that URLs can be leaked in browser cross-site requests via the Referer header. Additionally, URLs are usually stored in all kinds of logs. If any access or error logs of the server were publicly accessible, an attacker could also harvest password from it.
Recommendation
You should submit passwords using POST rather than GET. This way sensitive data won't be shared to other locations via URLs.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-598 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://hacking-and-security.de/ | 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 | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://hacking-and-security.de/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 405 status code and the header: `Allow: GET, HEAD` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-16 |
| 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 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://hacking-and-security.de/register |
|
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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-29927 | 9.1 | 0.98378 | 0.99911 | No | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 1.11.4 and prior to versions 12.3.5, 13.5.9, 14.2.25, and 15.2.3, it is possible to bypass authorization checks within a Next.js application, if the authorization check occurs in middleware. If patching to a safe version is infeasible, it is recommend that you prevent external user requests which contain the x-middleware-subrequest header from reaching your Next.js application. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.3.5, 13.5.9, 14.2.25, and 15.2.3. |
| CVE-2026-44578 | 8.6 | 0.37756 | 0.98347 | No | 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 | 0.00351 | 0.2687 | No | 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-2025-67779 | 7.5 | 0.1888 | 0.9692 | No | It was found that the fix addressing CVE-2025-55184 in React Server Components was incomplete and does not prevent a denial of service attack in a specific case. React Server Components versions 19.0.2, 19.1.3 and 19.2.2 are affected, allowing unsafe deserialization of payloads from HTTP requests to Server Function endpoints. This can cause an infinite loop that hangs the server process and may prevent future HTTP requests from being served. |
| CVE-2025-55184 | 7.5 | 0.65592 | 0.99163 | No | A pre-authentication denial of service vulnerability exists in React Server Components versions 19.0.0, 19.0.1 19.1.0, 19.1.1, 19.1.2, 19.2.0 and 19.2.1, including the following packages: react-server-dom-parcel, react-server-dom-turbopack, and react-server-dom-webpack. The vulnerable code unsafely deserializes payloads from HTTP requests to Server Function endpoints, which can cause an infinite loop that hangs the server process and may prevent future HTTP requests from being served. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Next.js 14.2.18
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 Linux 5.4 has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.4 End-of-life date: 2025-12-03 Latest version for the cycle: 5.4.302 This release cycle (5.4) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2019-11-25 and its latest release date was 2025-12-03.
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: docks01.rzone.de, shades04.rzone.de
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.hacking-and-security.de | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;" |
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.hacking-and-security.de | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.hacking-and-security.de | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;" |
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
We managed to detect that Next.js has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 14.2.18 End-of-life date: 2025-10-26 Latest version for the cycle: 14.2.35 This release cycle (14) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2023-10-26 and its latest release date was 2025-12-11.
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 4.15 - 5.6 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| hacking-and-security.de | A | IPv4 address | 82.165.127.164 |
| hacking-and-security.de | NS | Name server | docks01.rzone.de |
| hacking-and-security.de | NS | Name server | shades04.rzone.de |
| hacking-and-security.de | MX | Mail server | 5 smtpin.rzone.de |
| hacking-and-security.de | SOA | Start of Authority | docks01.rzone.de. hostmaster.strato-rz.de. 2025050619 86400 7200 604800 300 |
| _dmarc.hacking-and-security.de | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Next.js 14.2.18 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| HSTS | Security |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | 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.