Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | ASECNA online - Accueil |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 20.160.229.221 |
| country | NL  |
| network_name | Microsoft Corporation |
| asn | AS8075 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.43 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.43 |
3389/tcp | ms-wbt-server | Microsoft Terminal Services - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.43 | Web servers |
| jQuery 1.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| MooTools 1.4.5 | JavaScript frameworks |
| OpenSSL 1.1.1f | Web server extensions |
| PHP 7.4.4 | Programming languages |
| Spin.js | JavaScript libraries |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Joomla | CMS |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44631 | 9.8 | 0.00505 | 0.39104 | Buffer Underwrite vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server on crafted regular expressions in the configuration. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.67. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.68, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2026-29167 | 9.8 | 0.0071 | 0.4868 | Use After Free vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server with mod_ldap in per-directory configuration This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.67. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.68, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2026-28780 | 9.8 | 0.00663 | 0.46822 | Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server. If mod_proxy_ajp connects to a malicious AJP server this AJP server can send a malicious AJP message back to mod_proxy_ajp and cause it to write 4 attacker controlled bytes after the end of a heap based buffer. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: through 2.4.66. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.67, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2024-38476 | 9.8 | 0.41611 | 0.98504 | 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 | 0.02456 | 0.82315 | 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. |
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-2024-3566 | 9.8 | 0.06883 | 0.93237 | A command inject vulnerability allows an attacker to perform command injection on Windows applications that indirectly depend on the CreateProcess function when the specific conditions are satisfied. |
| CVE-2022-37454 | 9.8 | 0.05236 | 0.91457 | The Keccak XKCP SHA-3 reference implementation before fdc6fef has an integer overflow and resultant buffer overflow that allows attackers to execute arbitrary code or eliminate expected cryptographic properties. This occurs in the sponge function interface. |
| CVE-2017-9120 | 9.8 | 0.07562 | 0.93745 | PHP 7.x through 7.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string because of an Integer overflow in mysqli_real_escape_string. |
| CVE-2017-8923 | 9.8 | 0.07191 | 0.93501 | The zend_string_extend function in Zend/zend_string.h in PHP through 7.1.5 does not prevent changes to string objects that result in a negative length, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging a script's use of .= with a long string. |
| CVE-2021-21708 | 8.2 | 0.03002 | 0.85634 | In PHP versions 7.4.x below 7.4.28, 8.0.x below 8.0.16, and 8.1.x below 8.1.3, when using filter functions with FILTER_VALIDATE_FLOAT filter and min/max limits, if the filter fails, there is a possibility to trigger use of allocated memory after free, which can result it crashes, and potentially in overwrite of other memory chunks and RCE. This issue affects: code that uses FILTER_VALIDATE_FLOAT with min/max limits. |
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-2021-3711 | 9.8 | 0.87816 | 0.9974 | In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Typically an application will call this function twice. The first time, on entry, the "out" parameter can be NULL and, on exit, the "outlen" parameter is populated with the buffer size required to hold the decrypted plaintext. The application can then allocate a sufficiently sized buffer and call EVP_PKEY_decrypt() again, but this time passing a non-NULL value for the "out" parameter. A bug in the implementation of the SM2 decryption code means that the calculation of the buffer size required to hold the plaintext returned by the first call to EVP_PKEY_decrypt() can be smaller than the actual size required by the second call. This can lead to a buffer overflow when EVP_PKEY_decrypt() is called by the application a second time with a buffer that is too small. A malicious attacker who is able present SM2 content for decryption to an application could cause attacker chosen data to overflow the buffer by up to a maximum of 62 bytes altering the contents of other data held after the buffer, possibly changing application behaviour or causing the application to crash. The location of the buffer is application dependent but is typically heap allocated. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1l (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1k). |
| CVE-2026-45447 | 8.8 | 0.01409 | 0.69136 | Issue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could trigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification. Impact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap corruption, or potentially remote code execution. When processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData digestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may incorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent use of the BIO by the calling application results in a use-after-free condition. In the common case this occurs when the application later calls BIO_free() on the BIO originally passed to PKCS7_verify(). Depending on allocator behavior and application-specific BIO usage patterns, this may result in a crash or other memory corruption. In some application contexts this may potentially be exploitable for remote code execution. Applications that process PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed messages using OpenSSL PKCS#7 APIs may be affected. Applications using the CMS APIs for this processing are not affected. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| CVE-2026-7383 | 8.1 | 0.00358 | 0.27528 | Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination buffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap buffer overflow. Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour. In ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination size for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift of the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and UNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts for UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches around 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30 characters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and the subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the one-byte allocation. X.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(), whose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID size limits cap the input length; no network protocol or certificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow. Triggering the bug requires an application that calls ASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers a custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with attacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more. For these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| CVE-2026-28387 | 8.1 | 0.00631 | 0.45459 | Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based server authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may result in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side. Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code. However, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both the PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate usage. By far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672 recommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX certificate usages. These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable to this issue. Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and ignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable. The client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a TLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records. No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the FIPS module boundary. |
| CVE-2023-4807 | 7.8 | 0.00862 | 0.53793 | Issue summary: The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation contains a bug that might corrupt the internal state of applications on the Windows 64 platform when running on newer X86_64 processors supporting the AVX512-IFMA instructions. Impact summary: If in an application that uses the OpenSSL library an attacker can influence whether the POLY1305 MAC algorithm is used, the application state might be corrupted with various application dependent consequences. The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation in OpenSSL does not save the contents of non-volatile XMM registers on Windows 64 platform when calculating the MAC of data larger than 64 bytes. Before returning to the caller all the XMM registers are set to zero rather than restoring their previous content. The vulnerable code is used only on newer x86_64 processors supporting the AVX512-IFMA instructions. The consequences of this kind of internal application state corruption can be various - from no consequences, if the calling application does not depend on the contents of non-volatile XMM registers at all, to the worst consequences, where the attacker could get complete control of the application process. However given the contents of the registers are just zeroized so the attacker cannot put arbitrary values inside, the most likely consequence, if any, would be an incorrect result of some application dependent calculations or a crash leading to a denial of service. The POLY1305 MAC algorithm is most frequently used as part of the CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD (authenticated encryption with associated data) algorithm. The most common usage of this AEAD cipher is with TLS protocol versions 1.2 and 1.3 and a malicious client can influence whether this AEAD cipher is used by the server. This implies that server applications using OpenSSL can be potentially impacted. However we are currently not aware of any concrete application that would be affected by this issue therefore we consider this a Low severity security issue. As a workaround the AVX512-IFMA instructions support can be disabled at runtime by setting the environment variable OPENSSL_ia32cap: OPENSSL_ia32cap=:~0x200000 The FIPS provider is not affected by this 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-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.8383 | 0.99657 | 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 | 0.99019 | 0.99925 | 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 | 0.06273 | 0.92677 | 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 | 0.87218 | 0.99727 | 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 | 0.30224 | 0.97985 | 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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.asecna.aero/index.php/fr/ | c36dca17821b3a9df396f84f8ddf7c5e | Set-Cookie: c36dca17821b3a9df396f84f8ddf7c5e=21n5gifulu3naie5s2a5b4odtg |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-32821 | 6.2 | 0.00644 | 0.46018 | MooTools is a collection of JavaScript utilities for JavaScript developers. All known versions include a CSS selector parser that is vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). An attack requires that an attacker can inject a string into a CSS selector at runtime, which is quite common with e.g. jQuery CSS selectors. No patches are available for this 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.asecna.aero/index.php/fr/ | 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://www.asecna.aero/index.php/fr/ | 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 Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.43 | Web servers |
| jQuery 1.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| MooTools 1.4.5 | JavaScript frameworks |
| OpenSSL 1.1.1f | Web server extensions |
| PHP 7.4.4 | Programming languages |
| Spin.js | JavaScript libraries |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Joomla | CMS |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| 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://www.asecna.aero/index.php/fr/ | 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
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://www.asecna.aero/index.php/fr/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.asecna.aero/index.php/fr/ |
|
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.
Recommendation
Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-287 |
| 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
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 3389/tcp open ms-wbt-server Microsoft Terminal Services
Vulnerability description
We found that the Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) service is publicly accessible. Attackers often look for the Remote Desktop Protocol service due to its capability to provide remote access and control of a server, usually one that operates on the Microsoft Windows operating system.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to launch authentication attacks, like guessing login credentials, potentially gaining unauthorized access. Attackers might use publicly available employee information for brute-force attacks. Vulnerabilities, such as unpatched software or protocol flaws, could also be exploited. An example is CVE-2019-0708 (Bluekeep) vulnerability. Additionally, integration with Active Directory Domain Services could allow attackers to move laterally across the network, accessing more systems and sensitive data.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off Remote Desktop Protocol access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). Avoid permitting direct user authentication to Active Directory over the Internet to prevent attackers from engaging in password guessing or causing the lockout of legitimate domain user accounts. If the Remote Desktop Protocol service is essential for business purposes, limiting access to designated IP addresses is recommended.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44631 | 9.8 | 0.00505 | 0.39104 | No | Buffer Underwrite vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server on crafted regular expressions in the configuration. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.67. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.68, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2026-29167 | 9.8 | 0.0071 | 0.4868 | No | Use After Free vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server with mod_ldap in per-directory configuration This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.67. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.68, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2026-28780 | 9.8 | 0.00663 | 0.46822 | No | Heap-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server. If mod_proxy_ajp connects to a malicious AJP server this AJP server can send a malicious AJP message back to mod_proxy_ajp and cause it to write 4 attacker controlled bytes after the end of a heap based buffer. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: through 2.4.66. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.67, which fixes the issue. |
| CVE-2024-38476 | 9.8 | 0.41611 | 0.98504 | 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 | 0.02456 | 0.82315 | 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. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.43
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-2024-3566 | 9.8 | 0.06883 | 0.93237 | No | A command inject vulnerability allows an attacker to perform command injection on Windows applications that indirectly depend on the CreateProcess function when the specific conditions are satisfied. |
| CVE-2022-37454 | 9.8 | 0.05236 | 0.91457 | No | The Keccak XKCP SHA-3 reference implementation before fdc6fef has an integer overflow and resultant buffer overflow that allows attackers to execute arbitrary code or eliminate expected cryptographic properties. This occurs in the sponge function interface. |
| CVE-2017-9120 | 9.8 | 0.07562 | 0.93745 | No | PHP 7.x through 7.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string because of an Integer overflow in mysqli_real_escape_string. |
| CVE-2017-8923 | 9.8 | 0.07191 | 0.93501 | No | The zend_string_extend function in Zend/zend_string.h in PHP through 7.1.5 does not prevent changes to string objects that result in a negative length, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging a script's use of .= with a long string. |
| CVE-2021-21708 | 8.2 | 0.03002 | 0.85634 | No | In PHP versions 7.4.x below 7.4.28, 8.0.x below 8.0.16, and 8.1.x below 8.1.3, when using filter functions with FILTER_VALIDATE_FLOAT filter and min/max limits, if the filter fails, there is a possibility to trigger use of allocated memory after free, which can result it crashes, and potentially in overwrite of other memory chunks and RCE. This issue affects: code that uses FILTER_VALIDATE_FLOAT with min/max limits. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 7.4.4
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-2021-3711 | 9.8 | 0.87816 | 0.9974 | No | In order to decrypt SM2 encrypted data an application is expected to call the API function EVP_PKEY_decrypt(). Typically an application will call this function twice. The first time, on entry, the "out" parameter can be NULL and, on exit, the "outlen" parameter is populated with the buffer size required to hold the decrypted plaintext. The application can then allocate a sufficiently sized buffer and call EVP_PKEY_decrypt() again, but this time passing a non-NULL value for the "out" parameter. A bug in the implementation of the SM2 decryption code means that the calculation of the buffer size required to hold the plaintext returned by the first call to EVP_PKEY_decrypt() can be smaller than the actual size required by the second call. This can lead to a buffer overflow when EVP_PKEY_decrypt() is called by the application a second time with a buffer that is too small. A malicious attacker who is able present SM2 content for decryption to an application could cause attacker chosen data to overflow the buffer by up to a maximum of 62 bytes altering the contents of other data held after the buffer, possibly changing application behaviour or causing the application to crash. The location of the buffer is application dependent but is typically heap allocated. Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1l (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1k). |
| CVE-2026-45447 | 8.8 | 0.01409 | 0.69136 | No | Issue summary: A specially crafted PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message could trigger a use-after-free during PKCS#7 signature verification. Impact summary: A use-after-free may result in process crashes, heap corruption, or potentially remote code execution. When processing a PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed message, if the SignedData digestAlgorithms field is present as an empty ASN.1 SET, OpenSSL may incorrectly free a caller-owned BIO during PKCS7_verify(). A subsequent use of the BIO by the calling application results in a use-after-free condition. In the common case this occurs when the application later calls BIO_free() on the BIO originally passed to PKCS7_verify(). Depending on allocator behavior and application-specific BIO usage patterns, this may result in a crash or other memory corruption. In some application contexts this may potentially be exploitable for remote code execution. Applications that process PKCS#7 or S/MIME signed messages using OpenSSL PKCS#7 APIs may be affected. Applications using the CMS APIs for this processing are not affected. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| CVE-2026-7383 | 8.1 | 0.00358 | 0.27528 | No | Issue summary: A signed integer overflow when sizing the destination buffer for Unicode output in ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() can lead to a heap buffer overflow. Impact summary: A heap buffer overflow may lead to a crash or possibly attacker controlled code execution or other undefined behaviour. In ASN1_mbstring_copy() and ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() the destination size for Unicode output is computed in a signed int: by left shift of the input character count for BMPSTRING (UTF-16) and UNIVERSALSTRING (UTF-32), and by summing per-character byte counts for UTF8STRING. The calculation overflows when the input reaches around 2^30 characters. In the worst case (UNIVERSALSTRING at 2^30 characters) the size wraps to zero, OPENSSL_malloc(1) is called, and the subsequent character copy writes several gigabytes past the one-byte allocation. X.509 certificate processing routes through ASN1_STRING_set_by_NID(), whose DIRSTRING_TYPE mask excludes UNIVERSALSTRING and whose per-NID size limits cap the input length; no network protocol or certificate-handling path in OpenSSL exercises the overflow. Triggering the bug requires an application that calls ASN1_mbstring_copy() or ASN1_mbstring_ncopy() directly, or registers a custom string type via ASN1_STRING_TABLE_add(), with attacker-controlled input on the order of half a gigabyte or more. For these reasons this issue was assigned Low severity. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. |
| CVE-2026-28387 | 8.1 | 0.00631 | 0.45459 | No | Issue summary: An uncommon configuration of clients performing DANE TLSA-based server authentication, when paired with uncommon server DANE TLSA records, may result in a use-after-free and/or double-free on the client side. Impact summary: A use after free can have a range of potential consequences such as the corruption of valid data, crashes or execution of arbitrary code. However, the issue only affects clients that make use of TLSA records with both the PKIX-TA(0/PKIX-EE(1) certificate usages and the DANE-TA(2) certificate usage. By far the most common deployment of DANE is in SMTP MTAs for which RFC7672 recommends that clients treat as 'unusable' any TLSA records that have the PKIX certificate usages. These SMTP (or other similar) clients are not vulnerable to this issue. Conversely, any clients that support only the PKIX usages, and ignore the DANE-TA(2) usage are also not vulnerable. The client would also need to be communicating with a server that publishes a TLSA RRset with both types of TLSA records. No FIPS modules are affected by this issue, the problem code is outside the FIPS module boundary. |
| CVE-2023-4807 | 7.8 | 0.00862 | 0.53793 | No | Issue summary: The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation contains a bug that might corrupt the internal state of applications on the Windows 64 platform when running on newer X86_64 processors supporting the AVX512-IFMA instructions. Impact summary: If in an application that uses the OpenSSL library an attacker can influence whether the POLY1305 MAC algorithm is used, the application state might be corrupted with various application dependent consequences. The POLY1305 MAC (message authentication code) implementation in OpenSSL does not save the contents of non-volatile XMM registers on Windows 64 platform when calculating the MAC of data larger than 64 bytes. Before returning to the caller all the XMM registers are set to zero rather than restoring their previous content. The vulnerable code is used only on newer x86_64 processors supporting the AVX512-IFMA instructions. The consequences of this kind of internal application state corruption can be various - from no consequences, if the calling application does not depend on the contents of non-volatile XMM registers at all, to the worst consequences, where the attacker could get complete control of the application process. However given the contents of the registers are just zeroized so the attacker cannot put arbitrary values inside, the most likely consequence, if any, would be an incorrect result of some application dependent calculations or a crash leading to a denial of service. The POLY1305 MAC algorithm is most frequently used as part of the CHACHA20-POLY1305 AEAD (authenticated encryption with associated data) algorithm. The most common usage of this AEAD cipher is with TLS protocol versions 1.2 and 1.3 and a malicious client can influence whether this AEAD cipher is used by the server. This implies that server applications using OpenSSL can be potentially impacted. However we are currently not aware of any concrete application that would be affected by this issue therefore we consider this a Low severity security issue. As a workaround the AVX512-IFMA instructions support can be disabled at runtime by setting the environment variable OPENSSL_ia32cap: OPENSSL_ia32cap=:~0x200000 The FIPS provider is not affected by this issue. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for OpenSSL 1.1.1f
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-2021-32821 | 6.2 | 0.00644 | 0.46018 | No | MooTools is a collection of JavaScript utilities for JavaScript developers. All known versions include a CSS selector parser that is vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS). An attack requires that an attacker can inject a string into a CSS selector at runtime, which is quite common with e.g. jQuery CSS selectors. No patches are available for this issue. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for MooTools 1.4.5
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-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.8383 | 0.99657 | 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 | 0.99019 | 0.99925 | 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 | 0.06273 | 0.92677 | 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 | 0.87218 | 0.99727 | 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 | 0.30224 | 0.97985 | 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 1.8.3
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
We managed to detect that OpenSSL has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.1.1f End-of-life date: 2023-09-11 Latest version for the cycle: 1.1.1w This release cycle (1.1.1) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2018-09-11 and its latest release date was 2023-09-12.
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: 7.4.4 End-of-life date: 2022-11-28 Latest version for the cycle: 7.4.33 This release cycle (7.4) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2019-11-28 and its latest release date was 2022-11-03. The support ended on 2021-11-28.
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 managed to detect that jQuery has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.8.3 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Windows Server 2016 | 89% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.asecna.aero | A | IPv4 address | 20.160.229.221 |
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 |
|---|---|
| Joomla | CMS |
| PHP 7.4.4 | Programming languages |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| OpenSSL 1.1.1f | Web server extensions |
| MooTools 1.4.5 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.43 | Web servers |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Spin.js | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 1.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| 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.