Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Turtl: ABM & Revenue Content Platform for B2B Marketers |
| Description: | Turtl combines content creation, personalization, and intent data to power ABM & demand geneneration to drive repeatable pipeline and revenue. |
| ip_address | 199.60.103.146 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS209242 |
| ip_address | 199.60.103.46 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS209242 |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | cloudflare - |
2082/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8443/tcp | https-alt | cloudflare - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| core-js 3.0.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Goober | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| jQuery 1.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| HubSpot Cookie Policy Banner | Cookie compliance |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Preact | JavaScript libraries |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| HubSpot | Marketing automation |
| HubSpot CMS Hub | CMS |
| HubSpot Analytics | Analytics |
| Intercom | Live chat, CRM |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.66129 | 0.98533 | 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 | 0.07042 | 0.91521 | 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-2020-7656 | 6.1 | 0.01105 | 0.78182 | jquery prior to 1.9.0 allows Cross-site Scripting attacks via the load method. The load method fails to recognize and remove "<script>" HTML tags that contain a whitespace character, i.e: "</script >", which results in the enclosed script logic to be executed. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.02426 | 0.85198 | 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 | 0.96404 | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://turtl.co/ | 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-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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| core-js 3.0.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Goober | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| jQuery 1.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| HubSpot Cookie Policy Banner | Cookie compliance |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Preact | JavaScript libraries |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| HubSpot | Marketing automation |
| HubSpot CMS Hub | CMS |
| HubSpot Analytics | Analytics |
| Intercom | Live chat, CRM |
| HSTS | Security |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We 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-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.66129 | 0.98533 | Yes | 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 | 0.07042 | 0.91521 | No | 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-2020-7656 | 6.1 | 0.01105 | 0.78182 | No | jquery prior to 1.9.0 allows Cross-site Scripting attacks via the load method. The load method fails to recognize and remove "<script>" HTML tags that contain a whitespace character, i.e: "</script >", which results in the enclosed script logic to be executed. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.02426 | 0.85198 | No | 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 | 0.96404 | No | 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
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 1.7.1
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns-1306.awsdns-35.org, ns-1992.awsdns-57.co.uk, ns-713.awsdns-25.net, ns-72.awsdns-09.com
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| turtl.co | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:hubspotemail.net include:_spf.google.com include:helpscoutemail.com include:stspg-customer.com include:1707745.spf01.hubspotemail.net ~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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc-pub@turtl.co; ruf=mailto:dmarc-pub@turtl.co; pct=100; fo=1" |
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.turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc-pub@turtl.co; ruf=mailto:dmarc-pub@turtl.co; pct=100; fo=1" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.
Risk description
While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.
Recommendation
We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.
Evidence
We managed to detect that jQuery has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.7.1 Latest version for the cycle: 1.12.4 This release cycle (1) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2006-08-31 and its latest release date was 2016-05-20.
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| turtl.co | A | IPv4 address | 199.60.103.146 |
| turtl.co | A | IPv4 address | 199.60.103.46 |
| turtl.co | NS | Name server | ns-1306.awsdns-35.org |
| turtl.co | NS | Name server | ns-1992.awsdns-57.co.uk |
| turtl.co | NS | Name server | ns-713.awsdns-25.net |
| turtl.co | NS | Name server | ns-72.awsdns-09.com |
| turtl.co | MX | Mail server | 10 aspmx.l.google.com |
| turtl.co | MX | Mail server | 20 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| turtl.co | MX | Mail server | 20 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| turtl.co | MX | Mail server | 30 aspmx2.googlemail.com |
| turtl.co | MX | Mail server | 30 aspmx3.googlemail.com |
| turtl.co | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-72.awsdns-09.com. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400 |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "4209fe538c9c2e523900aae9d9fa5b6a" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "_globalsign-domain-verification=EjPxRpSNAI2an12JHUpXeiMSoted2BhX6p_ljbqWlU" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "_globalsign-domain-verification=Fw09cFhmPL_-Bfg6BV5_NkyDEkXJfmQd4uPViX560A" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "_globalsign-domain-verification=TvC8-gBj3ZGTKctSLNowZ2_hcn6bYq3-w7tZChXL80" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "anthropic-domain-verification-fnpyqf=6lqHO1I8ACzCnTWuTb4PP7HMo" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "apple-domain-verification=rM6i8834sFDmewZx" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "atlassian-domain-verification=0dWcDqiyjQWv0uaCAoFRKUtQneSA5dDAwNKOaQaAu999UqabIXE9a9VTlceaS39C" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "fastly-domain-delegation-turtletime-07-02-2019" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "globalsign-domain-verification=zfCNvJt0iTcEchLrE0nrimsdl4h4m4zVTSJYOcrlcJ" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=387sZCTZGzkozOmmOHFW7c78VyZHq9f4A8yDsAbDOcY" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=_alR0kdwHWr8z7_U8tRo_E3nSGtrVoBhY0f20DC7atk" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "pardot974872=9f4792d9c1939ccc41912b7bfbd52d4708cd8a8d97e083dbce0af6679b6defb9" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "pardot993652=ad9bbbffc1fd685a20b6bb9592f9366f0424b73823d59f9dbdd8626d12b9122b" |
| turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "status-page-domain-verification=jrcchktlwqn9" |
| turtl.co | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:hubspotemail.net include:_spf.google.com include:helpscoutemail.com include:stspg-customer.com include:1707745.spf01.hubspotemail.net ~all" |
| _dmarc.turtl.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc-pub@turtl.co; ruf=mailto:dmarc-pub@turtl.co; pct=100; fo=1" |
Risk description
An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.
Recommendation
We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1074 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA1C85cZ7OPLYQQ1rilYXQ9u6hbvNUnaeYnojm6iaWNBRUMU7X8iI3VibYJyYY3DdOWcRWzWXB7KYUofClJsZ2q6mC1E4FQnn5KazGZ4OOpIxSet4+a6UeotyTTd1crGHEJRgEQe/" "0Q/dugMe9N6mJIElBGL35Ma6A7eemai9ZcV32kIFz/6aYd4+03XduxZJtviO9+RtpVixK50hT5qMXTpbn/ec6lDmyICA71wD+TU710lVJkHOvrmoyKXr7TnIVNCT/9wCusTYQs6TV+rWXEBNacAXRFJrnmGnG4ECaiqlhZYlOLpmoVGQ+uist3N8J1D3FeLNPsmDmSUUCd7Q9NwIDAQAB" | |
| m1 | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDCUsMXVyvoTUJ3Ov/NAsONt5pXDjUfIJF8h4gZ4qcswAdOXZ8BBqGfLz5uq8PWXdfwZTP8k4aPiqgm8MuGNYXa2Hk974OtgXJSMkJ4XToZHhIXJTxcTO2dpcdn71PBuc4hotsfOGmMP6js3iT2tIppDv+3omcJ/bpb+NoRxpjOuwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE | 92% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| HubSpot CMS Hub | CMS |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| jQuery 1.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| HubSpot Analytics | Analytics |
| HubSpot | Marketing automation |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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.