Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Unicom Group |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 109.166.240.14 |
| country | RO  |
| network_name | Orange Romania S.A |
| asn | AS8953 |
80/tcp | http | Microsoft IIS httpd 7.5 |
443/tcp | https | Microsoft IIS httpd 7.5 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| ZURB Foundation 5.5.1 | UI frameworks |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| jQuery 2.1.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Modernizr 2.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Microsoft ASP.NET | Web frameworks |
| Cookie Control | Cookie compliance |
| Cookiebot 1 | Cookie compliance |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| IIS 7.5 | Web servers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | CVE-2010-3972 | Heap-based buffer overflow in the TELNET_STREAM_CONTEXT::OnSendData function in ftpsvc.dll in Microsoft FTP Service 7.0 and 7.5 for Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.0, and IIS 7.5, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (daemon crash) via a crafted FTP command, aka "IIS FTP Service Heap Buffer Overrun Vulnerability." NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information. | internet_information_services 7.5 | |
| 9.3 | CVE-2010-2730 | Buffer overflow in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.5, when FastCGI is enabled, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted headers in a request, aka "Request Header Buffer Overflow Vulnerability." | internet_information_services 7.5 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | 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. | jquery 2.1.3 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 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. | jquery 2.1.3 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | 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. | jquery 2.1.3 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2015-9251 | 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. | jquery 2.1.3 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2010-1899 | Stack consumption vulnerability in the ASP implementation in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 5.1, 6.0, 7.0, and 7.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon outage) via a crafted request, related to asp.dll, aka "IIS Repeated Parameter Request Denial of Service Vulnerability." | internet_information_services 7.5 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
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-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://unicom-group.eu/tranzit/index.html | pll_language | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: pll_language=ro |
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
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application's web server presents an SSL/TLS certificate that is not trusted by web browsers. This issue typically arises when the server uses a self-signed certificate, a certificate from an untrusted authority, or a certificate that has expired or is invalid for other reasons. The lack of a trusted certificate makes it challenging for users to verify the authenticity of the server, undermining the security of the SSL/TLS connection.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could easily mount a man-in-the-middle attack in order to sniff the SSL communication by presenting the user a fake SSL certificate.
Recommendation
We recommend you to configure a trusted SSL certificate for the web server. Examples of how to configure SSL for various servers for Apache and Nginx are referenced.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://unicom-group.eu/tranzit/index.html | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.
Risk description
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.
Recommendation
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://unicom-group.eu/ | Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).
Recommendation
The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://unicom-group.eu/tranzit/index.html | 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 Cookies: pll_language=ro |
|
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application is serving mixed content. This occurs when initial HTML is loaded over a secure HTTPS connection, but other resources (such as images, videos, stylesheets, scripts) are loaded over an insecure HTTP connection. This is called mixed content because both HTTP and HTTPS content are being loaded to display the same page, and the initial request was secure over HTTPS.
Risk description
The risk is that the insecurely loaded resources (HTTP) on an otherwise secure page (HTTPS) can be intercepted or manipulated by attackers, potentially leading to eavesdropping or content tampering.
Recommendation
Ensure that all external resources the page references are loaded using HTTPS.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-311 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| ZURB Foundation 5.5.1 | UI frameworks |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| jQuery 2.1.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Modernizr 2.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Microsoft ASP.NET | Web frameworks |
| Cookie Control | Cookie compliance |
| Cookiebot 1 | Cookie compliance |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| IIS 7.5 | Web servers |
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://unicom-group.eu/ | 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://unicom-group.eu/ | 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-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://unicom-group.eu/ | 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 |
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://unicom-group.eu/ | 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 |
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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://unicom-group.eu/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: OPTIONS, TRACE, GET, HEAD, POST` 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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2010-3972 | 10 | 0.91689 | 0.99658 | No | Heap-based buffer overflow in the TELNET_STREAM_CONTEXT::OnSendData function in ftpsvc.dll in Microsoft FTP Service 7.0 and 7.5 for Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.0, and IIS 7.5, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (daemon crash) via a crafted FTP command, aka "IIS FTP Service Heap Buffer Overrun Vulnerability." NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information. |
| CVE-2010-2730 | 9.3 | 0.10296 | 0.92813 | No | Buffer overflow in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 7.5, when FastCGI is enabled, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted headers in a request, aka "Request Header Buffer Overflow Vulnerability." |
| CVE-2010-1899 | 4.3 | 0.87011 | 0.99392 | No | Stack consumption vulnerability in the ASP implementation in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 5.1, 6.0, 7.0, and 7.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon outage) via a crafted request, related to asp.dll, aka "IIS Repeated Parameter Request Denial of Service Vulnerability." |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for IIS 7.5
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.unicom-group.eu | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=43200;rua=mailto:dmarc@unicom-group.eu;ruf=mailto:dmarc@unicom-group.eu" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is configured with sp=none, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. This allows subdomains to send emails without being subject to DMARC checks, making it easier for attackers to spoof emails from these subdomains. Subdomains are often overlooked in email security, and attackers can exploit this misconfiguration to launch phishing or spoofing attacks from seemingly legitimate subdomains of a protected domain.
Risk description
When the DMARC record is configured with sp=none, subdomains are not subject to DMARC enforcement, allowing attackers to spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked. This creates a significant risk of phishing and impersonation attacks, where malicious emails appear to originate from trusted subdomains. These spoofed emails can be used to deceive users or damage the organization's reputation, undermining the security benefits of DMARC for the primary domain.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend that the subdomain policy should be updated to sp=reject to ensure that any email failing DMARC checks from subdomains is automatically rejected. This will help prevent unauthorized emails from being sent from subdomains, reducing the risk of spoofing and phishing. Additionally, it's important to regularly monitor DMARC reports to track email activity from subdomains and adjust policies as needed to maintain consistent security across the entire domain.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.bdm.microsoftonline.com, ns2.bdm.microsoftonline.com, ns3.bdm.microsoftonline.com, ns4.bdm.microsoftonline.com
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| unicom-group.eu | A | IPv4 address | 109.166.240.14 |
| unicom-group.eu | NS | Name server | ns1.bdm.microsoftonline.com |
| unicom-group.eu | NS | Name server | ns2.bdm.microsoftonline.com |
| unicom-group.eu | NS | Name server | ns3.bdm.microsoftonline.com |
| unicom-group.eu | NS | Name server | ns4.bdm.microsoftonline.com |
| unicom-group.eu | MX | Mail server | 0 unicomgroup-eu01e.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| unicom-group.eu | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.bdm.microsoftonline.com. azuredns-hostmaster.microsoft.com. 1 3600 300 2419200 300 |
| unicom-group.eu | TXT | Text record | "mscid=HRGQOdTFSZrWjKWyy5NHNpsoEhSTNM6+IgqyCmENboCds1DOp+nXspNk+281BjnoNVaRsZFoX9yCqpMPwifn3Q==" |
| unicom-group.eu | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:109.166.240.2/28 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
| _dmarc.unicom-group.eu | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100;fo=0;rf=afrf;ri=43200;rua=mailto:dmarc@unicom-group.eu;ruf=mailto:dmarc@unicom-group.eu" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector1 | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA3OZw5rDgx3tJtDo2/IyORhdIAHCXGTmAFvuyYP4e8KH9qhH+/Rr8e0x8T86AdV5WcUwwPtKguuz8L1KEhS1liu/ygW4FsjbM4/xXWXP+8fIO7YoPiDIbWNRGV8yV25dTU7npxep1h4TR85PdTAt1DjvpZ0ySxvN5upC5RMj3p9IzLH8qpmP8jyRCzkRmsU5HE" "ZyqENFvR4WMXqRCkAUxBArO8hLVePNR33NC+ZtcXJdlTISvb5obTGe4MyX2ZtIYSOfgee8YWfME2l3WXJZJLhssw3nBPmWGSVwS4ON0GHvpWXVFp1OjOdfJQQjjTcS0uBRZfCHUXGkImn5rJyMi6QIDAQAB;" |
| selector2 | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEApxV9ARJPh0e5FgWA0veWaNK5/vN2mLSMpM+Omf0XaLKdEjksIvuKa31WRCpDe6iRTH4/AV6hK9M5g7KSasX7vpDhTITtIj4RxXbGgSDusHEjU/g995kia/maXcqMjH+Q5rblY2wbPjHA8xEuOWoAbTBXdmh77HRB+Zd+31X+QX5YdHIMVcknbDFhP9pMj6ZYz" "ZviCTshAporppXD5k7rNusciubApwd6W1m4n81EnJ2dhf2BB4J5PeOHrHHycU0t17eHeKSrQMeTFkEm1q2Pg+lfDMUh90CGWCOdIALR9cCaBSNox0VSm6W+bH4Q4w/9suG7KYCifHx6uvI8ooj5pQIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Windows Server 2008 or 2008 Beta 3 | 92% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| unicom-group.eu | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:109.166.240.2/28 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| ZURB Foundation | UI frameworks |
| Microsoft ASP.NET | Web frameworks |
| IIS 7.5 | Web servers |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| Cookiebot | Cookie compliance |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
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.