Vulnerability Scan Result

| ip_address | 202.147.169.205 |
| country | PK |
| network_name | LINKdotNET Telecom Limited |
| asn | AS23966 |
21/tcp | ftp | ProFTPD 1.3.4c |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.10 |
111/tcp | rpcbind | - 2-4 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.10 |
2000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3306/tcp | mysql | MySQL 5.6.20 |
5060/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Facebook Login | Authentication |
| FitVids.JS 5.1.1 | Widgets, Video players |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| waitForImages | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 1.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| prettyPhoto | JavaScript libraries |
| GSAP 1.19.0 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 | Web servers |
| Infinite Scroll 5.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Ionicons | Font scripts |
| Isotope | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 1.12.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| ProgressBar.js 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| Masonry | JavaScript libraries |
| Typed.js 5.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr 2.6.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| OpenSSL 1.0.1i | Web server extensions |
| mod_perl 2.0.8 | Web server extensions |
| Perl 5.16.3 | Programming languages |
| PHP 5.5.15 | Programming languages |
| Skrollr 0.6.10 | JavaScript libraries |
| Easy Pie Chart | JavaScript libraries |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| UNIX | Operating systems |
| WordPress 5.1.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| wpBakery | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Chart.js | JavaScript graphics |
| NextGEN Gallery 3.1.17 | Photo galleries, WordPress plugins |
| Mixitup | JavaScript libraries |
| MediaElement.js 4.2.6 | Video players |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2015-0235 | 10 | 0.86662 | 0.99427 | Heap-based buffer overflow in the __nss_hostname_digits_dots function in glibc 2.2, and other 2.x versions before 2.18, allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors related to the (1) gethostbyname or (2) gethostbyname2 function, aka "GHOST." |
| CVE-2016-2554 | 9.8 | 0.10282 | 0.93199 | Stack-based buffer overflow in ext/phar/tar.c in PHP before 5.5.32, 5.6.x before 5.6.18, and 7.x before 7.0.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted TAR archive. |
| CVE-2015-8391 | 9.8 | 0.06404 | 0.91078 | The pcre_compile function in pcre_compile.c in PCRE before 8.38 mishandles certain [: nesting, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted regular expression, as demonstrated by a JavaScript RegExp object encountered by Konqueror. |
| CVE-2015-5589 | 9.8 | 0.10384 | 0.9324 | The phar_convert_to_other function in ext/phar/phar_object.c in PHP before 5.4.43, 5.5.x before 5.5.27, and 5.6.x before 5.6.11 does not validate a file pointer before a close operation, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (segmentation fault) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted TAR archive that is mishandled in a Phar::convertToData call. |
| CVE-2015-4642 | 9.8 | 0.05952 | 0.90682 | The escapeshellarg function in ext/standard/exec.c in PHP before 5.4.42, 5.5.x before 5.5.26, and 5.6.x before 5.6.10 on Windows allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a crafted string to an application that accepts command-line arguments for a call to the PHP system function. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-36326 | 9.8 | 0.00304 | 0.53578 | PHPMailer 6.1.8 through 6.4.0 allows object injection through Phar Deserialization via addAttachment with a UNC pathname. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2018-19296, but arose because 6.1.8 fixed a functionality problem in which UNC pathnames were always considered unreadable by PHPMailer, even in safe contexts. As an unintended side effect, this fix eliminated the code that blocked addAttachment exploitation. |
| CVE-2020-28037 | 9.8 | 0.1273 | 0.94024 | is_blog_installed in wp-includes/functions.php in WordPress before 5.5.2 improperly determines whether WordPress is already installed, which might allow an attacker to perform a new installation, leading to remote code execution (as well as a denial of service for the old installation). |
| CVE-2020-28036 | 9.8 | 0.06074 | 0.90793 | wp-includes/class-wp-xmlrpc-server.php in WordPress before 5.5.2 allows attackers to gain privileges by using XML-RPC to comment on a post. |
| CVE-2020-28035 | 9.8 | 0.06561 | 0.91185 | WordPress before 5.5.2 allows attackers to gain privileges via XML-RPC. |
| CVE-2020-28032 | 9.8 | 0.25814 | 0.96285 | WordPress before 5.5.2 mishandles deserialization requests in wp-includes/Requests/Utility/FilteredIterator.php. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2011-2767 | 9.8 | 0.03454 | 0.87564 | mod_perl 2.0 through 2.0.10 allows attackers to execute arbitrary Perl code by placing it in a user-owned .htaccess file, because (contrary to the documentation) there is no configuration option that permits Perl code for the administrator's control of HTTP request processing without also permitting unprivileged users to run Perl code in the context of the user account that runs Apache HTTP Server processes. |
| CVE-2007-1349 | 5 | 0.18225 | 0.95225 | PerlRun.pm in Apache mod_perl before 1.30, and RegistryCooker.pm in mod_perl 2.x, does not properly escape PATH_INFO before use in a regular expression, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption) via a crafted URI. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-38476 | 9.8 | 0.04554 | 0.89235 | Vulnerability in core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier are vulnerably to information disclosure, SSRF or local script execution via backend applications whose response headers are malicious or exploitable. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. |
| CVE-2024-38474 | 9.8 | 0.00994 | 0.76996 | Substitution encoding issue in mod_rewrite in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows attacker to execute scripts in directories permitted by the configuration but not directly reachable by any URL or source disclosure of scripts meant to only to be executed as CGI. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. Some RewriteRules that capture and substitute unsafely will now fail unless rewrite flag "UnsafeAllow3F" is specified. |
| CVE-2023-25690 | 9.8 | 0.68183 | 0.98616 | Some mod_proxy configurations on Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.0 through 2.4.55 allow a HTTP Request Smuggling attack. Configurations are affected when mod_proxy is enabled along with some form of RewriteRule or ProxyPassMatch in which a non-specific pattern matches some portion of the user-supplied request-target (URL) data and is then re-inserted into the proxied request-target using variable substitution. For example, something like: RewriteEngine on RewriteRule "^/here/(.*)" "http://example.com:8080/elsewhere?$1"; [P] ProxyPassReverse /here/ http://example.com:8080/ Request splitting/smuggling could result in bypass of access controls in the proxy server, proxying unintended URLs to existing origin servers, and cache poisoning. Users are recommended to update to at least version 2.4.56 of Apache HTTP Server. |
| CVE-2022-31813 | 9.8 | 0.00043 | 0.13026 | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.53 and earlier may not send the X-Forwarded-* headers to the origin server based on client side Connection header hop-by-hop mechanism. This may be used to bypass IP based authentication on the origin server/application. |
| CVE-2022-23943 | 9.8 | 0.60552 | 0.983 | Out-of-bounds Write vulnerability in mod_sed of Apache HTTP Server allows an attacker to overwrite heap memory with possibly attacker provided data. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server 2.4 version 2.4.52 and prior versions. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-4176 | 9.8 | 0.00028 | 0.07726 | Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94. |
| CVE-2018-6913 | 9.8 | 0.03896 | 0.88318 | Heap-based buffer overflow in the pack function in Perl before 5.26.2 allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a large item count. |
| CVE-2018-18314 | 9.8 | 0.05205 | 0.89971 | Perl before 5.26.3 has a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression that triggers invalid write operations. |
| CVE-2018-18312 | 9.8 | 0.1085 | 0.93402 | Perl before 5.26.3 and 5.28.0 before 5.28.1 has a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression that triggers invalid write operations. |
| CVE-2018-18311 | 9.8 | 0.11355 | 0.93584 | Perl before 5.26.3 and 5.28.x before 5.28.1 has a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression that triggers invalid write operations. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-6303 | 9.8 | 0.26222 | 0.96322 | Integer overflow in the MDC2_Update function in crypto/mdc2/mdc2dgst.c in OpenSSL before 1.1.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds write and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via unknown vectors. |
| CVE-2016-2842 | 9.8 | 0.54295 | 0.98037 | The doapr_outch function in crypto/bio/b_print.c in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1s and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2g does not verify that a certain memory allocation succeeds, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds write or memory consumption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string, as demonstrated by a large amount of ASN.1 data, a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-0799. |
| CVE-2016-2182 | 9.8 | 0.29224 | 0.96613 | The BN_bn2dec function in crypto/bn/bn_print.c in OpenSSL before 1.1.0 does not properly validate division results, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds write and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via unknown vectors. |
| CVE-2016-2177 | 9.8 | 0.29058 | 0.966 | OpenSSL through 1.0.2h incorrectly uses pointer arithmetic for heap-buffer boundary checks, which might allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (integer overflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging unexpected malloc behavior, related to s3_srvr.c, ssl_sess.c, and t1_lib.c. |
| CVE-2016-2108 | 9.8 | 0.36957 | 0.97176 | The ASN.1 implementation in OpenSSL before 1.0.1o and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2c allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (buffer underflow and memory corruption) via an ANY field in crafted serialized data, aka the "negative zero" issue. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-14314 | 9.8 | 0.32413 | 0.96872 | A SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Imagely NextGEN Gallery plugin before 3.2.11 for WordPress. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability would allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the affected system via modules/nextgen_gallery_display/package.module.nextgen_gallery_display.php. |
| CVE-2020-35942 | 8.8 | 0.00311 | 0.54253 | A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) issue in the NextGEN Gallery plugin before 3.5.0 for WordPress allows File Upload and Local File Inclusion via settings modification, leading to Remote Code Execution and XSS. (It is possible to bypass CSRF protection by simply not including a nonce parameter.) |
| CVE-2023-3154 | 7.5 | 0.00459 | 0.64039 | The WordPress Gallery Plugin WordPress plugin before 3.39 is vulnerable to PHAR Deserialization due to a lack of input parameter validation in the `gallery_edit` function, allowing an attacker to access arbitrary resources on the server. |
| CVE-2023-3155 | 7.2 | 0.00374 | 0.59067 | The WordPress Gallery Plugin WordPress plugin before 3.39 is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read and Delete due to a lack of input parameter validation in the `gallery_edit` function, allowing an attacker to access arbitrary resources on the server. |
| CVE-2020-35943 | 6.5 | 0.0011 | 0.28932 | A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) issue in the NextGEN Gallery plugin before 3.5.0 for WordPress allows File Upload. (It is possible to bypass CSRF protection by simply not including a nonce parameter.) |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.59045 | 0.98242 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-11022 | 6.9 | 0.02456 | 0.8528 | In jQuery starting with 1.12.0 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.02426 | 0.85201 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
| CVE-2015-9251 | 6.1 | 0.27164 | 0.96407 | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-41184 | 6.5 | 0.25367 | 0.96233 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `of` option of the `.position()` util from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `of` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `of` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41183 | 6.5 | 0.02921 | 0.86448 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of various `*Text` options of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. The values passed to various `*Text` options are now always treated as pure text, not HTML. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `*Text` options from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41182 | 6.5 | 0.27509 | 0.96445 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `altField` option of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `altField` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `altField` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2022-31160 | 6.1 | 0.10183 | 0.93157 | jQuery UI is a curated set of user interface interactions, effects, widgets, and themes built on top of jQuery. Versions prior to 1.13.2 are potentially vulnerable to cross-site scripting. Initializing a checkboxradio widget on an input enclosed within a label makes that parent label contents considered as the input label. Calling `.checkboxradio( "refresh" )` on such a widget and the initial HTML contained encoded HTML entities will make them erroneously get decoded. This can lead to potentially executing JavaScript code. The bug has been patched in jQuery UI 1.13.2. To remediate the issue, someone who can change the initial HTML can wrap all the non-input contents of the `label` in a `span`. |
| CVE-2016-7103 | 6.1 | 0.01397 | 0.80492 | Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in jQuery UI before 1.12.0 might allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the closeText parameter of the dialog function. |
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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pucit.edu.pk/ | 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://pucit.edu.pk/ | 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
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://pucit.edu.pk/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Facebook Login | Authentication |
| FitVids.JS 5.1.1 | Widgets, Video players |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| waitForImages | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 1.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| prettyPhoto | JavaScript libraries |
| GSAP 1.19.0 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 | Web servers |
| Infinite Scroll 5.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Ionicons | Font scripts |
| Isotope | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 1.12.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| ProgressBar.js 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| Masonry | JavaScript libraries |
| Typed.js 5.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr 2.6.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| OpenSSL 1.0.1i | Web server extensions |
| mod_perl 2.0.8 | Web server extensions |
| Perl 5.16.3 | Programming languages |
| PHP 5.5.15 | Programming languages |
| Skrollr 0.6.10 | JavaScript libraries |
| Easy Pie Chart | JavaScript libraries |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| UNIX | Operating systems |
| WordPress 5.1.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| wpBakery | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Chart.js | JavaScript graphics |
| NextGEN Gallery 3.1.17 | Photo galleries, WordPress plugins |
| Mixitup | JavaScript libraries |
| MediaElement.js 4.2.6 | Video players |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pucit.edu.pk/ | 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 | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://pucit.edu.pk/?canary=ibxicbeciv | TRACE | We injected a random query parameter inside a HTTP TRACE request. The server responded with a 200 OK HTTP status code and we found the random value reflected in the body of the response. |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with a 200 OK HTTP status when a TRACE/TRACK HTTP request was sent. Originally intended for debugging purposes, these methods respond to requests by echoing back the contents of the request received.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing HTTP headers that have been appended by intermediate proxy servers on the way to the destination. This can present a danger if any of those headers contain sensitive information like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
Generally, it is good practice to disable unused functionality to minimize your attack surface. We recommend that you disable unused HTTP methods, or even better, allow only the ones that you know are used. 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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-36326 | 9.8 | 0.00304 | 0.53578 | No | PHPMailer 6.1.8 through 6.4.0 allows object injection through Phar Deserialization via addAttachment with a UNC pathname. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2018-19296, but arose because 6.1.8 fixed a functionality problem in which UNC pathnames were always considered unreadable by PHPMailer, even in safe contexts. As an unintended side effect, this fix eliminated the code that blocked addAttachment exploitation. |
| CVE-2020-28037 | 9.8 | 0.1273 | 0.94024 | No | is_blog_installed in wp-includes/functions.php in WordPress before 5.5.2 improperly determines whether WordPress is already installed, which might allow an attacker to perform a new installation, leading to remote code execution (as well as a denial of service for the old installation). |
| CVE-2020-28036 | 9.8 | 0.06074 | 0.90793 | No | wp-includes/class-wp-xmlrpc-server.php in WordPress before 5.5.2 allows attackers to gain privileges by using XML-RPC to comment on a post. |
| CVE-2020-28035 | 9.8 | 0.06561 | 0.91185 | No | WordPress before 5.5.2 allows attackers to gain privileges via XML-RPC. |
| CVE-2020-28032 | 9.8 | 0.25814 | 0.96285 | No | WordPress before 5.5.2 mishandles deserialization requests in wp-includes/Requests/Utility/FilteredIterator.php. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 5.1.1
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-4176 | 9.8 | 0.00028 | 0.07726 | No | Perl versions from 5.9.4 before 5.40.4-RC1, from 5.41.0 before 5.42.2-RC1, from 5.43.0 before 5.43.9 contain a vulnerable version of Compress::Raw::Zlib. Compress::Raw::Zlib is included in the Perl package as a dual-life core module, and is vulnerable to CVE-2026-3381 due to a vendored version of zlib which has several vulnerabilities, including CVE-2026-27171. The bundled Compress::Raw::Zlib was updated to version 2.221 in Perl blead commit c75ae9cc164205e1b6d6dbd57bd2c65c8593fe94. |
| CVE-2018-6913 | 9.8 | 0.03896 | 0.88318 | No | Heap-based buffer overflow in the pack function in Perl before 5.26.2 allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via a large item count. |
| CVE-2018-18314 | 9.8 | 0.05205 | 0.89971 | No | Perl before 5.26.3 has a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression that triggers invalid write operations. |
| CVE-2018-18312 | 9.8 | 0.1085 | 0.93402 | No | Perl before 5.26.3 and 5.28.0 before 5.28.1 has a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression that triggers invalid write operations. |
| CVE-2018-18311 | 9.8 | 0.11355 | 0.93584 | No | Perl before 5.26.3 and 5.28.x before 5.28.1 has a buffer overflow via a crafted regular expression that triggers invalid write operations. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Perl 5.16.3
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-2554 | 9.8 | 0.10282 | 0.93199 | No | Stack-based buffer overflow in ext/phar/tar.c in PHP before 5.5.32, 5.6.x before 5.6.18, and 7.x before 7.0.3 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted TAR archive. |
| CVE-2015-8391 | 9.8 | 0.06404 | 0.91078 | No | The pcre_compile function in pcre_compile.c in PCRE before 8.38 mishandles certain [: nesting, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted regular expression, as demonstrated by a JavaScript RegExp object encountered by Konqueror. |
| CVE-2015-5589 | 9.8 | 0.10384 | 0.9324 | No | The phar_convert_to_other function in ext/phar/phar_object.c in PHP before 5.4.43, 5.5.x before 5.5.27, and 5.6.x before 5.6.11 does not validate a file pointer before a close operation, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (segmentation fault) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a crafted TAR archive that is mishandled in a Phar::convertToData call. |
| CVE-2015-4642 | 9.8 | 0.05952 | 0.90682 | No | The escapeshellarg function in ext/standard/exec.c in PHP before 5.4.42, 5.5.x before 5.5.26, and 5.6.x before 5.6.10 on Windows allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via a crafted string to an application that accepts command-line arguments for a call to the PHP system function. |
| CVE-2015-0235 | 10 | 0.86662 | 0.99427 | No | Heap-based buffer overflow in the __nss_hostname_digits_dots function in glibc 2.2, and other 2.x versions before 2.18, allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors related to the (1) gethostbyname or (2) gethostbyname2 function, aka "GHOST." |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 5.5.15
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2011-2767 | 9.8 | 0.03454 | 0.87564 | No | mod_perl 2.0 through 2.0.10 allows attackers to execute arbitrary Perl code by placing it in a user-owned .htaccess file, because (contrary to the documentation) there is no configuration option that permits Perl code for the administrator's control of HTTP request processing without also permitting unprivileged users to run Perl code in the context of the user account that runs Apache HTTP Server processes. |
| CVE-2007-1349 | 5 | 0.18225 | 0.95225 | No | PerlRun.pm in Apache mod_perl before 1.30, and RegistryCooker.pm in mod_perl 2.x, does not properly escape PATH_INFO before use in a regular expression, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption) via a crafted URI. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for mod_perl 2.0.8
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-9843 | 9.8 | 0.15071 | 0.94605 | No | The crc32_big function in crc32.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact via vectors involving big-endian CRC calculation. |
| CVE-2016-9841 | 9.8 | 0.13495 | 0.94238 | No | inffast.c in zlib 1.2.8 might allow context-dependent attackers to have unspecified impact by leveraging improper pointer arithmetic. |
| CVE-2016-6662 | 9.8 | 0.89577 | 0.99564 | No | Oracle MySQL through 5.5.52, 5.6.x through 5.6.33, and 5.7.x through 5.7.15; MariaDB before 5.5.51, 10.0.x before 10.0.27, and 10.1.x before 10.1.17; and Percona Server before 5.5.51-38.1, 5.6.x before 5.6.32-78.0, and 5.7.x before 5.7.14-7 allow local users to create arbitrary configurations and bypass certain protection mechanisms by setting general_log_file to a my.cnf configuration. NOTE: this can be leveraged to execute arbitrary code with root privileges by setting malloc_lib. NOTE: the affected MySQL version information is from Oracle's October 2016 CPU. Oracle has not commented on third-party claims that the issue was silently patched in MySQL 5.5.52, 5.6.33, and 5.7.15. |
| CVE-2016-0705 | 9.8 | 0.20656 | 0.95615 | No | Double free vulnerability in the dsa_priv_decode function in crypto/dsa/dsa_ameth.c in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1s and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2g allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a malformed DSA private key. |
| CVE-2016-0639 | 9.8 | 0.15283 | 0.94648 | No | Unspecified vulnerability in Oracle MySQL 5.6.29 and earlier and 5.7.11 and earlier allows remote attackers to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability via vectors related to Pluggable Authentication. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Mysql 5.6.20
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-38476 | 9.8 | 0.04554 | 0.89235 | No | Vulnerability in core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier are vulnerably to information disclosure, SSRF or local script execution via backend applications whose response headers are malicious or exploitable. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. |
| CVE-2024-38474 | 9.8 | 0.00994 | 0.76996 | No | Substitution encoding issue in mod_rewrite in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows attacker to execute scripts in directories permitted by the configuration but not directly reachable by any URL or source disclosure of scripts meant to only to be executed as CGI. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. Some RewriteRules that capture and substitute unsafely will now fail unless rewrite flag "UnsafeAllow3F" is specified. |
| CVE-2023-25690 | 9.8 | 0.68183 | 0.98616 | No | Some mod_proxy configurations on Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.0 through 2.4.55 allow a HTTP Request Smuggling attack. Configurations are affected when mod_proxy is enabled along with some form of RewriteRule or ProxyPassMatch in which a non-specific pattern matches some portion of the user-supplied request-target (URL) data and is then re-inserted into the proxied request-target using variable substitution. For example, something like: RewriteEngine on RewriteRule "^/here/(.*)" "http://example.com:8080/elsewhere?$1"; [P] ProxyPassReverse /here/ http://example.com:8080/ Request splitting/smuggling could result in bypass of access controls in the proxy server, proxying unintended URLs to existing origin servers, and cache poisoning. Users are recommended to update to at least version 2.4.56 of Apache HTTP Server. |
| CVE-2022-31813 | 9.8 | 0.00043 | 0.13026 | No | Apache HTTP Server 2.4.53 and earlier may not send the X-Forwarded-* headers to the origin server based on client side Connection header hop-by-hop mechanism. This may be used to bypass IP based authentication on the origin server/application. |
| CVE-2022-23943 | 9.8 | 0.60552 | 0.983 | No | Out-of-bounds Write vulnerability in mod_sed of Apache HTTP Server allows an attacker to overwrite heap memory with possibly attacker provided data. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server 2.4 version 2.4.52 and prior versions. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-14314 | 9.8 | 0.32413 | 0.96872 | No | A SQL injection vulnerability exists in the Imagely NextGEN Gallery plugin before 3.2.11 for WordPress. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability would allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary SQL commands on the affected system via modules/nextgen_gallery_display/package.module.nextgen_gallery_display.php. |
| CVE-2020-35942 | 8.8 | 0.00311 | 0.54253 | No | A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) issue in the NextGEN Gallery plugin before 3.5.0 for WordPress allows File Upload and Local File Inclusion via settings modification, leading to Remote Code Execution and XSS. (It is possible to bypass CSRF protection by simply not including a nonce parameter.) |
| CVE-2023-3154 | 7.5 | 0.00459 | 0.64039 | No | The WordPress Gallery Plugin WordPress plugin before 3.39 is vulnerable to PHAR Deserialization due to a lack of input parameter validation in the `gallery_edit` function, allowing an attacker to access arbitrary resources on the server. |
| CVE-2023-3155 | 7.2 | 0.00374 | 0.59067 | No | The WordPress Gallery Plugin WordPress plugin before 3.39 is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read and Delete due to a lack of input parameter validation in the `gallery_edit` function, allowing an attacker to access arbitrary resources on the server. |
| CVE-2020-35943 | 6.5 | 0.0011 | 0.28932 | No | A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) issue in the NextGEN Gallery plugin before 3.5.0 for WordPress allows File Upload. (It is possible to bypass CSRF protection by simply not including a nonce parameter.) |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for NextGEN Gallery 3.1.17
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2016-6303 | 9.8 | 0.26222 | 0.96322 | No | Integer overflow in the MDC2_Update function in crypto/mdc2/mdc2dgst.c in OpenSSL before 1.1.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds write and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via unknown vectors. |
| CVE-2016-2842 | 9.8 | 0.54295 | 0.98037 | No | The doapr_outch function in crypto/bio/b_print.c in OpenSSL 1.0.1 before 1.0.1s and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2g does not verify that a certain memory allocation succeeds, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds write or memory consumption) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string, as demonstrated by a large amount of ASN.1 data, a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-0799. |
| CVE-2016-2182 | 9.8 | 0.29224 | 0.96613 | No | The BN_bn2dec function in crypto/bn/bn_print.c in OpenSSL before 1.1.0 does not properly validate division results, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (out-of-bounds write and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via unknown vectors. |
| CVE-2016-2177 | 9.8 | 0.29058 | 0.966 | No | OpenSSL through 1.0.2h incorrectly uses pointer arithmetic for heap-buffer boundary checks, which might allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (integer overflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging unexpected malloc behavior, related to s3_srvr.c, ssl_sess.c, and t1_lib.c. |
| CVE-2016-2108 | 9.8 | 0.36957 | 0.97176 | No | The ASN.1 implementation in OpenSSL before 1.0.1o and 1.0.2 before 1.0.2c allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (buffer underflow and memory corruption) via an ANY field in crafted serialized data, aka the "negative zero" issue. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for OpenSSL 1.0.1i
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 MySQL service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 3306/tcp open mysql MySQL 5.6.20
Vulnerability description
We identified that the MySQL service is publicly accessible. MySQL serves as a common database for numerous web applications and services for data storage, making it a potential prime target for determined attackers.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker exploits this issue by launching a password-based attack on the MySQL service. Furthermore, they could exploit zero-day vulnerabilities to obtain remote access to the MySQL database server, thereby gaining complete control over its operating system and associated services. Such an attack could lead to the exposure of confidential or sensitive information.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off public Internet access to MySQL and opting for a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that enforces two-factor authentication (2FA). Avoid enabling direct user authentication to the MySQL service via the Internet, as this could enable attackers to engage in password-guessing and potentially initiate attacks leading to complete control. However, if the MySQL service is required to be directly accessible over the Internet, we recommend reconfiguring it to be accessible only from known IP addresses.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp ProFTPD 1.3.4c
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 managed to detect that mysql has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.6.20 End-of-life date: 2021-02-28 Latest version for the cycle: 5.6.51 This release cycle (5.6) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2013-02-01 and its latest release date was 2021-01-05. The support ended on 2018-02-28.
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 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 managed to detect that OpenSSL has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.0.1i End-of-life date: 2016-12-31 Latest version for the cycle: 1.0.1u This release cycle (1.0.1) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2012-03-14 and its latest release date was 2016-09-22.
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 didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.
Vulnerability description
We found that the target server has no DMARC policy configured. A missing DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy means that the domain is not enforcing any DMARC policies to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks. Without DMARC, even if SPF (Sender Policy Framework) or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are configured, there is no mechanism to tell receiving email servers how to handle messages that fail authentication. This leaves the domain vulnerable to abuse, such as email spoofing and impersonation.
Risk description
Without a DMARC policy, your domain is highly vulnerable to email spoofing, allowing attackers to impersonate your brand and send fraudulent emails that appear legitimate. This can lead to phishing attacks targeting your customers, employees, or partners, potentially resulting in stolen credentials, financial loss, or unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Additionally, repeated spoofing attempts can severely damage your brand's reputation, as recipients may lose trust in communications from your domain, associating your brand with malicious activity. The absence of DMARC also prevents you from monitoring and mitigating email-based attacks, leaving your domain exposed to ongoing abuse.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing a DMARC policy for your domain. Start by configuring a DMARC record with a policy of p=none, which will allow you to monitor email flows without impacting legitimate emails. This initial setup helps identify how emails from your domain are being processed by recipient servers. Once you’ve verified that legitimate emails are passing SPF and DKIM checks, you can gradually enforce stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject to protect against spoofing and phishing attacks. Additionally, include rua and ruf email addresses in the DMARC record to receive aggregate and forensic reports. These reports will provide valuable insights into authentication failures and help you detect any spoofing attempts.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns2.pucitedu.net, ns1.pucitedu.net
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| pucit.edu.pk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1" "include:_spf.google.com" "~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
We managed to detect that WordPress has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.1.1 End-of-life date: 2019-05-07 Latest version for the cycle: 5.1.22 This release cycle (5.1) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2019-02-21 and its latest release date was 2026-03-13.
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 managed to detect that PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.5.15 End-of-life date: 2016-07-21 Latest version for the cycle: 5.5.38 This release cycle (5.5) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2013-06-20 and its latest release date was 2016-07-21. The support ended on 2015-07-10.
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 3.0 or 3.5 | 97% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 5.1.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 5.5.15 | Programming languages |
| Perl 5.16.3 | Programming languages |
| Chart.js | JavaScript graphics |
| UNIX | Operating systems |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| OpenSSL 1.0.1i | Web server extensions |
| mod_perl 2.0.8 | Web server extensions |
| FitVids.JS 5.1.1 | Widgets, Video players |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 | Web servers |
| wpBakery | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| NextGEN Gallery 3.1.17 | Photo galleries, WordPress plugins |
| waitForImages | JavaScript libraries |
| Typed.js 5.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| ProgressBar.js 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| prettyPhoto | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| Mixitup | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 1.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Infinite Scroll 5.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Easy Pie Chart | JavaScript libraries |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| pucit.edu.pk | A | IPv4 address | 202.147.169.205 |
| pucit.edu.pk | NS | Name server | ns2.pucitedu.net |
| pucit.edu.pk | NS | Name server | ns1.pucitedu.net |
| pucit.edu.pk | MX | Mail server | 1 ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| pucit.edu.pk | MX | Mail server | 1 ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM |
| pucit.edu.pk | MX | Mail server | 10 ASPMX3.GOOGLEMAIL.COM |
| pucit.edu.pk | MX | Mail server | 5 ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| pucit.edu.pk | MX | Mail server | 5 ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| pucit.edu.pk | SOA | Start of Authority | daisy.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2402518057 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| pucit.edu.pk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1" "include:_spf.google.com" "~all" |
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.

