Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://magenta.at/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://www.magenta.at/

Submitted: Feb 16, 2026 from BJ

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Screenshot could not be taken.

Title:	Handy, Internet, Festnetz, TV uvm.
Description:	Entdecke unsere Magenta Angebote für Internet, Fernsehen, Mobilfunknetz uvm. Für Zuhause und Geschäftskunden. Wir sind Magenta!

IP Information

ip_address	212.166.122.42
country	AT
network_name	Deutsche Telekom Global Business Solutions GmbH
asn	AS8387

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	- -
443/tcp	https	- -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Angular 20.3.16	JavaScript frameworks
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Amazon S3	CDN
LazySizes	JavaScript libraries, Performance
Zone.js	JavaScript frameworks
Java	Programming languages
jQuery 3.6.4	JavaScript libraries
jQuery UI 1.14.1	JavaScript libraries
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
Sectigo	SSL/TLS certificate authorities
Swiper	JavaScript libraries
Usercentrics	Cookie compliance
Vue.js	JavaScript frameworks
PWA	Miscellaneous
Adobe Experience Manager	CMS
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security
Salesforce Audience Studio	Segmentation, Customer data platform
TypeScript	Programming languages
Cart Functionality	Ecommerce

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL
https://www.magenta.at/robots.txt

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

URL	Evidence
https://www.magenta.at/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files.

https://www.magenta.at/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.

Risk description

For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.

Recommendation

Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Angular 20.3.16	JavaScript frameworks
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Amazon S3	CDN
LazySizes	JavaScript libraries, Performance
Zone.js	JavaScript frameworks
Java	Programming languages
jQuery 3.6.4	JavaScript libraries
jQuery UI 1.14.1	JavaScript libraries
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
Sectigo	SSL/TLS certificate authorities
Swiper	JavaScript libraries
Usercentrics	Cookie compliance
Vue.js	JavaScript frameworks
PWA	Miscellaneous
Adobe Experience Manager	CMS
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security
Salesforce Audience Studio	Segmentation, Customer data platform
TypeScript	Programming languages
Cart Functionality	Ecommerce

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

URL	Evidence
https://www.magenta.at/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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
Missing: https://www.magenta.at/.well-known/security.txt

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.

Evidence

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://www.magenta.at/	GET	Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36	Operating system paths found in the HTTP response: `/content/magenta_at/austria/de_at/consumer/home/jcr` `/home/TAB-Für` `/home/TAB-Aktionen` `/root/tab_copy_copy_copy_c_1694838055/tabitem_copy` `/root/tab_copy_copy_copy_c_1694838055/tabitem` `/app/C101943757` `/home/TAB-Top` `/root/tab_copy_copy_copy_c_1694838055/tabitem_1941547753`

Vulnerability description

We found operating system paths returned in a HTTP response.

Risk description

The risk is that path disclosure may help an attacker learn more about the remote server's file system, thus increasing the effectiveness and precision of any future attacks.

Recommendation

Configure the web server to avoid leaking path information by using generic error messages that do not reveal any internal file paths. Make sure no server file is referred with its absolute path in the website code.

Classification

CWE	CWE-200
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Method	Summary
https://www.magenta.at/	OPTIONS	We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,POST,OPTIONS,HEAD` Request / Response

Vulnerability description

We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.

Risk description

The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.

Recommendation

We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.

Classification

CWE	CWE-16
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
www.magenta.at	A	IPv4 address	212.166.122.42

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
Cart Functionality	Ecommerce
Adobe Experience Manager	CMS
Java	Programming languages
Salesforce Audience Studio	Segmentation, Customer data platform
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Vue.js	JavaScript frameworks
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
Usercentrics	Cookie compliance
Sectigo	SSL/TLS certificate authorities
HSTS	Security
Amazon S3	CDN
PWA	Miscellaneous
Open Graph	Miscellaneous

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.