Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | IBCO-Limited |
| Description: | A modern, headless e-commerce experience. |
| ip_address | 161.35.160.209 |
| country | GB  |
| network_name | DigitalOcean |
| asn | AS14061 |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 9.6p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu13.19 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
8888/tcp | sun-answerbook | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.408 | Analytics |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Next.js 16.2.6 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Turbopack | Development |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Vite | Miscellaneous |
| Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-64649 | 8.3 | 0.00459 | 0.37076 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 14.1.1 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, when a Server Action forwards or redirects a request, an attacker can cause the server to send that outbound request to a malicious host (Server-Side Request Forgery). This requires the attacker's request to control Host-associated headers. In some configurations, it's also possible to obtain internal values that weaken middleware/proxy authorization. Applications that use Server Actions are affected when the incoming host header is not fixed to a trusted value. This typically occurs on custom servers, or on deployments not behind a proxy that pins the host. Managed hosting pins the host upstream and is not affected; next start and standalone output do the same from version 14.2 onward. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64645 | 8.3 | 0.00414 | 0.32882 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 12.0.0 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, a rewrites() or redirects() rule that builds its external destination hostname from request-controlled input can be pointed at an arbitrary hostname, regardless of the rule's hostname suffix. For a rewrite, Next.js proxies the request to that arbitrary host and serves the response from the application's origin, leading to Server-Side Request forgery. A redirects() rule configured this way is vulnerable to an Open Redirect. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64642 | 8.3 | 0.00635 | 0.48158 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, crafted requests targeting Next.js applications using App Router built with Turbopack and a single entry in config.i18n.locales can bypass middleware/proxy based authentication. This issue has been fixed in version 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64641 | 8.2 | 0.00856 | 0.56558 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 13.0.0 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, crafted requests targeting Next.js applications using App Router with at least one Server Action can lead to excessive CPU usage blocking processing of further requests in the same process. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64647 | 6.3 | 0.00317 | 0.21951 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 12.0.0 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, a server-side fetch with a request body may return a cached response body from a different request to the same URL but different body. Confidential data in the POST's response body would then leak to unauthorized requests. Though the request itself will not be deduped. This is only an issue when receiving request bodies with a content type charset other than UTF-8. For example, the UTF-16 byte sequences for 삃삃 and 섄섄 in the request body would share the same cache. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
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://ibco.co.uk/ | 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://ibco.co.uk/ | Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).
Recommendation
The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://ibco.co.uk/ | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://ibco.co.uk/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.408 | Analytics |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Next.js 16.2.6 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Turbopack | Development |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Vite | Miscellaneous |
| Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
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-2026-64649 | 8.3 | 0.00459 | 0.37076 | No | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 14.1.1 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, when a Server Action forwards or redirects a request, an attacker can cause the server to send that outbound request to a malicious host (Server-Side Request Forgery). This requires the attacker's request to control Host-associated headers. In some configurations, it's also possible to obtain internal values that weaken middleware/proxy authorization. Applications that use Server Actions are affected when the incoming host header is not fixed to a trusted value. This typically occurs on custom servers, or on deployments not behind a proxy that pins the host. Managed hosting pins the host upstream and is not affected; next start and standalone output do the same from version 14.2 onward. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64645 | 8.3 | 0.00414 | 0.32882 | No | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 12.0.0 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, a rewrites() or redirects() rule that builds its external destination hostname from request-controlled input can be pointed at an arbitrary hostname, regardless of the rule's hostname suffix. For a rewrite, Next.js proxies the request to that arbitrary host and serves the response from the application's origin, leading to Server-Side Request forgery. A redirects() rule configured this way is vulnerable to an Open Redirect. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64642 | 8.3 | 0.00635 | 0.48158 | No | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, crafted requests targeting Next.js applications using App Router built with Turbopack and a single entry in config.i18n.locales can bypass middleware/proxy based authentication. This issue has been fixed in version 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64641 | 8.2 | 0.00856 | 0.56558 | No | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 13.0.0 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, crafted requests targeting Next.js applications using App Router with at least one Server Action can lead to excessive CPU usage blocking processing of further requests in the same process. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
| CVE-2026-64647 | 6.3 | 0.00317 | 0.21951 | No | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. In versions 12.0.0 through 15.5.20 and 16.0.0 through 16.2.10, a server-side fetch with a request body may return a cached response body from a different request to the same URL but different body. Confidential data in the POST's response body would then leak to unauthorized requests. Though the request itself will not be deduped. This is only an issue when receiving request bodies with a content type charset other than UTF-8. For example, the UTF-16 byte sequences for 삃삃 and 섄섄 in the request body would share the same cache. This issue has been fixed in versions 15.5.21 and 16.2.11. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Next.js 16.2.6
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.ibco.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; rua=mailto:dmarc@ibco.co.uk; ruf=mailto:dmarc@ibco.co.uk; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=3600" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 2048 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsDe3nhw3qQYwRJQs1/f2cCMbLKPHwGqpiP1PgbeDyjrsg8X/ybZeQtjs+BK0sjZiBcTcC0mNRzdOHyJTXOjeqNUHSklIWHINQhVTfS5hy9Ale4KyEwiK9MlB81M38wSerbKJ5pYFiOcnOmnpOHBWpI3K9s34N5D/oJ85q8UDm94Vlunk1y0yK8Q3UuajQU9xn" "BFJAwNO9EJin70AOV0umgtxiF15PvGepp08fGC+vCtOrUHGe5FVWbeHnyjv34HNjeVThd98MAJDP06a7I98/3dPNHeKyUAqU1UvQXZgX1A7ZZYATWwbHdgye66VbJKONV6OfZlglKDuV5m15oCDCQIDAQAB;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.
Risk description
Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.livedns.co.uk, ns3.livedns.co.uk, ns2.livedns.co.uk
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 2048 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsDe3nhw3qQYwRJQs1/f2cCMbLKPHwGqpiP1PgbeDyjrsg8X/ybZeQtjs+BK0sjZiBcTcC0mNRzdOHyJTXOjeqNUHSklIWHINQhVTfS5hy9Ale4KyEwiK9MlB81M38wSerbKJ5pYFiOcnOmnpOHBWpI3K9s34N5D/oJ85q8UDm94Vlunk1y0yK8Q3UuajQU9xn" "BFJAwNO9EJin70AOV0umgtxiF15PvGepp08fGC+vCtOrUHGe5FVWbeHnyjv34HNjeVThd98MAJDP06a7I98/3dPNHeKyUAqU1UvQXZgX1A7ZZYATWwbHdgye66VbJKONV6OfZlglKDuV5m15oCDCQIDAQAB;" |
| s1 | rsa | 2048 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA03X/Vv2IKkhBF47L9NiG0aj6I3BzE3TooXIUEFjwyi4DKFrNHXP8hELCvgGtIu0lCAbVCflTOavZqswLEKJxa48NudDQ0jlJ1QgUAjaOKiCWw786Ar6Ndgw4EZFDeZtZ7Cy7o+LcprTO1W4DvqUyw2GidorO7N+L3WMd62GktNtYH7yvE+6DH2Swhn/KXRLOe1Y0W" "VP5MjxJz+w67/LdD1pF7SerZejpHMV+xXZegzADYzeqMnWKK3fSvh3VHjCdULhfywdSN7ZmPF394DGrxjrC04DDo2R7FkzLYWzHFPU7Xj2btQBtyqxN9pcKwNuPeuaKkqmtnnLg8bpBK6zW6QIDAQAB" |
| s2 | rsa | 2048 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAtfcZ37y8AEz8tdpxrGPsD8FRhgZD+IJ8eWjj7cpQes7XquGwW+jctmjHcaeqYf54uouWpvcqSTHwVh12sBwm+oLNy1IhkJx3B/KKkrO7v/Fegmc01qVC35Y5JMZMfB6qPRO7MDD0CczzPzKOARkEQR/jOIRlwV2mqC/z95lmEPIIa+ug3D1YXtPHleokdKn129t+Q" "jrakTm6X0BpTISMxCLKZHZgAhThFv//gVqYM2sBYuRhDpWaHaxaFG2CWLizFm9HEP/JP/GptzVxtKHS92rR75WYzxwQqtPAgEH7K0TQdRxc6EgiCH79H/CtC5ywEAuzgYtGncChO/XdovjUbwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ibco.co.uk | A | IPv4 address | 161.35.160.209 |
| ibco.co.uk | NS | Name server | ns1.livedns.co.uk |
| ibco.co.uk | NS | Name server | ns3.livedns.co.uk |
| ibco.co.uk | NS | Name server | ns2.livedns.co.uk |
| ibco.co.uk | MX | Mail server | 10 mx.spamexperts.com |
| ibco.co.uk | MX | Mail server | 20 fallbackmx.spamexperts.eu |
| ibco.co.uk | MX | Mail server | 30 lastmx.spamexperts.net |
| ibco.co.uk | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.livedns.co.uk. administrator.ibco.co.uk. 1542301560 10800 3600 604800 3600 |
| ibco.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "90kne15r50ha37q8vrg7uh2r7b" |
| ibco.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "s3bs0rlok7r03t78h625kl3o0g" |
| ibco.co.uk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:31.121.40.202 include:spf.antispamcloud.com include:_spf.elasticemail.com -all" |
| _dmarc.ibco.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; rua=mailto:dmarc@ibco.co.uk; ruf=mailto:dmarc@ibco.co.uk; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=3600" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ibco.co.uk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:31.121.40.202 include:spf.antispamcloud.com include:_spf.elasticemail.com -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Next.js 16.2.6 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Turbopack | Development |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.408 | Analytics |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Vite | 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 5.0 - 5.4 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection