Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Chase Schaap |
| Description: | Learn how to improve your body composition, strength, conditioning, and mobility. |
| IP address | 104.21.65.145 |
| Country | - |
| AS number | AS13335 |
| Net name | Cloudflare Inc |
| IP address | 172.67.164.25 |
| Country | - |
| AS number | AS13335 |
| Net name | Cloudflare Inc |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | cloudflare - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8443/tcp | http | cloudflare - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| FancyBox 3.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Kajabi | Ecommerce |
| AOS | JavaScript libraries |
| Moment.js 2.24.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Parsley.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Rudderstack | Customer data platform |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Lodash 1.8.2 | JavaScript libraries |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | CVE-2022-24785 | Moment.js is a JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. A path traversal vulnerability impacts npm (server) users of Moment.js between versions 1.0.1 and 2.29.1, especially if a user-provided locale string is directly used to switch moment locale. This problem is patched in 2.29.2, and the patch can be applied to all affected versions. As a workaround, sanitize the user-provided locale name before passing it to Moment.js. | moment 2.24.0 | |
| 5 | CVE-2022-31129 | moment is a JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. Affected versions of moment were found to use an inefficient parsing algorithm. Specifically using string-to-date parsing in moment (more specifically rfc2822 parsing, which is tried by default) has quadratic (N^2) complexity on specific inputs. Users may notice a noticeable slowdown is observed with inputs above 10k characters. Users who pass user-provided strings without sanity length checks to moment constructor are vulnerable to (Re)DoS attacks. The problem is patched in 2.29.4, the patch can be applied to all affected versions with minimal tweaking. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should consider limiting date lengths accepted from user input. | moment 2.24.0 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
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.
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-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.chaseschaap.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.chaseschaap.com/ | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.
Risk description
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.
Recommendation
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| FancyBox 3.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Kajabi | Ecommerce |
| AOS | JavaScript libraries |
| Moment.js 2.24.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Parsley.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Rudderstack | Customer data platform |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Lodash 1.8.2 | 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.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
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.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | CVE-2022-24785 | Moment.js is a JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. A path traversal vulnerability impacts npm (server) users of Moment.js between versions 1.0.1 and 2.29.1, especially if a user-provided locale string is directly used to switch moment locale. This problem is patched in 2.29.2, and the patch can be applied to all affected versions. As a workaround, sanitize the user-provided locale name before passing it to Moment.js. | |
| 5 | CVE-2022-31129 | moment is a JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. Affected versions of moment were found to use an inefficient parsing algorithm. Specifically using string-to-date parsing in moment (more specifically rfc2822 parsing, which is tried by default) has quadratic (N^2) complexity on specific inputs. Users may notice a noticeable slowdown is observed with inputs above 10k characters. Users who pass user-provided strings without sanity length checks to moment constructor are vulnerable to (Re)DoS attacks. The problem is patched in 2.29.4, the patch can be applied to all affected versions with minimal tweaking. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should consider limiting date lengths accepted from user input. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Moment.js 2.24.0
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.;
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | CVE-2022-24785 | Moment.js is a JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. A path traversal vulnerability impacts npm (server) users of Moment.js between versions 1.0.1 and 2.29.1, especially if a user-provided locale string is directly used to switch moment locale. This problem is patched in 2.29.2, and the patch can be applied to all affected versions. As a workaround, sanitize the user-provided locale name before passing it to Moment.js. | |
| 5 | CVE-2022-31129 | moment is a JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. Affected versions of moment were found to use an inefficient parsing algorithm. Specifically using string-to-date parsing in moment (more specifically rfc2822 parsing, which is tried by default) has quadratic (N^2) complexity on specific inputs. Users may notice a noticeable slowdown is observed with inputs above 10k characters. Users who pass user-provided strings without sanity length checks to moment constructor are vulnerable to (Re)DoS attacks. The problem is patched in 2.29.4, the patch can be applied to all affected versions with minimal tweaking. Users are advised to upgrade. Users unable to upgrade should consider limiting date lengths accepted from user input. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Moment.js 2.24.0
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.;
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_kjb@kajabi.com; fo=1; pct=100; rf=afrf" |
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target is configured with more than one DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) record in its DNS settings. According to the DMARC specification, only a single DMARC record is allowed per domain. When multiple DMARC records exist, email receivers may ignore the DMARC policy, leading to an improper application of email authentication and security checks. This misconfiguration weakens the domain’s email authentication stance, potentially allowing spoofed or fraudulent emails to bypass security checks. Such inconsistencies can lead to confusion for mail receivers on how to handle emails that fail SPF (Sender Policy Framework) and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) checks.
Risk description
When a domain has multiple DMARC records, email servers may not process the DMARC policy correctly, leading to confusion about how to handle emails that fail SPF and DKIM checks. This misconfiguration can be exploited by malicious actors to send spoofed or fraudulent emails that appear to come from the affected domain. As a result, organizations may face an increased risk of phishing attacks targeting employees or customers, potential damage to their reputation, and disruptions to the delivery of legitimate emails, as some mail servers may ignore the intended DMARC policy altogether.
Recommendation
To resolve the issue of multiple DMARC records, ensure that only one valid DMARC record is published in your domain's DNS. Remove any duplicate or conflicting entries and verify the configuration using tools like MXToolbox or DMARCian. Additionally, implement a strict DMARC policy such as p=reject or p=quarantine to ensure emails that fail SPF or DKIM checks are properly handled. If subdomains are in use, configure the sp tag appropriately. Enable DMARC reporting by setting up the rua and ruf tags to receive aggregate and forensic reports, which can help monitor for ongoing issues or abuse.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_kjb@kajabi.com; fo=1; pct=100; rf=afrf" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_kjb@kajabi.com; fo=1; pct=100; rf=afrf" |
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.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_kjb@kajabi.com; fo=1; pct=100; rf=afrf" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| chaseschaap.com | A | IPv4 address | 172.67.164.25 |
| chaseschaap.com | A | IPv4 address | 104.21.65.145 |
| chaseschaap.com | NS | Name server | art.ns.cloudflare.com |
| chaseschaap.com | NS | Name server | tess.ns.cloudflare.com |
| chaseschaap.com | MX | Mail server | 1 smtp.google.com |
| chaseschaap.com | SOA | Start of Authority | art.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2370066607 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| chaseschaap.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:3033::ac43:a419 |
| chaseschaap.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:3032::6815:4191 |
| chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=3h3sWkn-dzUXOs71nN_pURRmVGnfu_Ky6LPfhVnFf8o" |
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_kjb@kajabi.com; fo=1; pct=100; rf=afrf" |
| _dmarc.chaseschaap.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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
Vulnerability description
OS detection couldn't determine the operating system.
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Kajabi | Ecommerce |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Rudderstack | Customer data platform |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Parsley.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Moment.js 2.24.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Lodash 1.8.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| FancyBox 3.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| AOS | JavaScript libraries |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Kajabi | Ecommerce |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Rudderstack | Customer data platform |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Parsley.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Moment.js 2.24.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Lodash 1.8.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| FancyBox 3.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| AOS | JavaScript libraries |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| 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.