Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB

Submitted: May 05, 2026 from TN

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	BeStitched Needlepoint - Where Needlepoint Magic Happens
Description:	No description found

IP Information

ip_address	216.150.1.1
country	US
network_name	Amazon.com, Inc.
asn	AS16509

Open Ports

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

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Google Ads	Advertising
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Facebook Pixel 2.9.313	Analytics
Google Font API	Font scripts
core-js 3.32.2	JavaScript libraries
Google Analytics	Analytics
MySQL	Databases
Next.js 14.2.18	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
React	JavaScript frameworks
Shopify	Ecommerce
styled-components 5.3.11	JavaScript frameworks, Development
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
Google Ads Conversion Tracking	Analytics
Vercel	PaaS
PWA	Miscellaneous
Webpack	Miscellaneous
WordPress	CMS, Blogs
Bazaarvoice Reviews	Reviews
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Klaviyo	Marketing automation
HSTS	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	Summary
CVE-2025-29927	9.1	0.92118	0.99716	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 1.11.4 and prior to versions 12.3.5, 13.5.9, 14.2.25, and 15.2.3, it is possible to bypass authorization checks within a Next.js application, if the authorization check occurs in middleware. If patching to a safe version is infeasible, it is recommend that you prevent external user requests which contain the x-middleware-subrequest header from reaching your Next.js application. This vulnerability is fixed in 12.3.5, 13.5.9, 14.2.25, and 15.2.3.
CVE-2025-67779	7.5	0.00306	0.53718	It was found that the fix addressing CVE-2025-55184 in React Server Components was incomplete and does not prevent a denial of service attack in a specific case. React Server Components versions 19.0.2, 19.1.3 and 19.2.2 are affected, allowing unsafe deserialization of payloads from HTTP requests to Server Function endpoints. This can cause an infinite loop that hangs the server process and may prevent future HTTP requests from being served.
CVE-2025-55184	7.5	0.36988	0.97178	A pre-authentication denial of service vulnerability exists in React Server Components versions 19.0.0, 19.0.1 19.1.0, 19.1.1, 19.1.2, 19.2.0 and 19.2.1, including the following packages: react-server-dom-parcel, react-server-dom-turbopack, and react-server-dom-webpack. The vulnerable code unsafely deserializes payloads from HTTP requests to Server Function endpoints, which can cause an infinite loop that hangs the server process and may prevent future HTTP requests from being served.
CVE-2026-27980	6.9	0.00022	0.06227	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 10.0.0 and prior to version 16.1.7, the default Next.js image optimization disk cache (`/_next/image`) did not have a configurable upper bound, allowing unbounded cache growth. An attacker could generate many unique image-optimization variants and exhaust disk space, causing denial of service. This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by adding an LRU-backed disk cache with `images.maximumDiskCacheSize`, including eviction of least-recently-used entries when the limit is exceeded. Setting `maximumDiskCacheSize: 0` disables disk caching. If upgrading is not immediately possible, periodically clean `.next/cache/images` and/or reduce variant cardinality (e.g., tighten values for `images.localPatterns`, `images.remotePatterns`, and `images.qualities`).
CVE-2026-29057	6.3	0.00031	0.08924	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 9.5.0 and prior to versions 15.5.13 and 16.1.7, when Next.js rewrites proxy traffic to an external backend, a crafted `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` request using `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` could trigger request boundary disagreement between the proxy and backend. This could allow request smuggling through rewritten routes. An attacker could smuggle a second request to unintended backend routes (for example, internal/admin endpoints), bypassing assumptions that only the configured rewrite destination/path is reachable. This does not impact applications hosted on providers that handle rewrites at the CDN level, such as Vercel. The vulnerability originated in an upstream library vendored by Next.js. It is fixed in Next.js 15.5.13 and 16.1.7 by updating that dependency’s behavior so `content-length: 0` is added only when both `content-length` and `transfer-encoding` are absent, and `transfer-encoding` is no longer removed in that code path. If upgrading is not immediately possible, block chunked `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` requests on rewritten routes at the edge/proxy, and/or enforce authentication/authorization on backend routes.

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	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB	blinkIpCountry, blinkDetectedLocale20250902	The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: blinkIpCountry=GB Set-Cookie: blinkDetectedLocale20250902=GB

Vulnerability description

We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.

Recommendation

Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1004
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB	blinkIpCountry, blinkDetectedLocale20250902	Set-Cookie: blinkIpCountry=GB Set-Cookie: blinkDetectedLocale20250902=GB

Vulnerability description

We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.

Risk description

The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.

Recommendation

Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.

Classification

CWE	CWE-614
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB	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

Software / Version	Category
Google Ads	Advertising
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Facebook Pixel 2.9.313	Analytics
Google Font API	Font scripts
core-js 3.32.2	JavaScript libraries
Google Analytics	Analytics
MySQL	Databases
Next.js 14.2.18	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
React	JavaScript frameworks
Shopify	Ecommerce
styled-components 5.3.11	JavaScript frameworks, Development
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
Google Ads Conversion Tracking	Analytics
Vercel	PaaS
PWA	Miscellaneous
Webpack	Miscellaneous
WordPress	CMS, Blogs
Bazaarvoice Reviews	Reviews
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Klaviyo	Marketing automation
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

URL	Evidence
https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB	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	Evidence
https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB	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	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB	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	Email Address: Thegirls@bestitchedneedlepointshop.com lifelong@deviumusa.com

Vulnerability description

We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.

Risk description

The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.

Recommendation

Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.

Classification

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

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://bestitchedneedlepointshop.com/en-GB/.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.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1188
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.

Risk description

Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.

Recommendation

To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.

Risk description

Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.

Recommendation

We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.

Risk description

Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.

Risk description

The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
WordPress	CMS, Blogs
Next.js	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
Shopify	Ecommerce
MySQL	Databases
PHP	Programming languages
React	JavaScript frameworks
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Vercel	PaaS
Bazaarvoice Reviews	Reviews
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
HSTS	Security
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Google Ads	Advertising
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Google Analytics	Analytics
Google Ads Conversion Tracking	Analytics

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
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	A	IPv4 address	216.150.1.1
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	NS	Name server	ns11.domaincontrol.com
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	NS	Name server	ns12.domaincontrol.com
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	MX	Mail server	10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	MX	Mail server	1 aspmx.l.google.com
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	MX	Mail server	5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	MX	Mail server	5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	MX	Mail server	10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	SOA	Start of Authority	ns11.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2025112402 28800 7200 604800 600
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=A2wUbmXAr9dClSshP9jniA29CWlH_mrCdlEGN6HG7Do"
bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	TXT	Text record	"klaviyo-site-verification=SahH3C"
_dmarc.bestitchedneedlepointshop.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Risk description

An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.

Recommendation

We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.