Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | The Flourishing Systems Foundation · Events Calendar |
| Description: | View and subscribe to events from The Flourishing Systems Foundation on Luma. Cultivate the emergence of life-aligned futures through Research, Education, Community, & Incubation |
| ip_address | 104.18.8.136 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 104.18.9.136 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | cloudflare - |
2082/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8443/tcp | https-alt | cloudflare - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Goober | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Framer Motion | JavaScript libraries |
| Next.js 16.1.7 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Turbopack | Development |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Strava | Widgets |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-45109 | 7.5 | 0.00032 | 0.09306 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 15.2.0 to before 15.5.18 and 16.2.6, it was found that the fix addressing CVE-2026-44575 did not apply to middleware.ts with Turbopack. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.18 and 16.2.6. |
| CVE-2026-44576 | 5.4 | 0.00012 | 0.01668 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 14.2.0 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, applications using React Server Components can be vulnerable to cache poisoning when shared caches do not correctly partition response variants. Under affected conditions, an attacker can cause an RSC response to be served from the original URL and poison shared cache entries so later visitors receive component payloads instead of the expected HTML. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
| CVE-2026-44581 | 4.7 | 0.00036 | 0.10887 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 13.4.0 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, App Router applications that rely on CSP nonces can be vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting when deployed behind shared caches. In affected versions, malformed nonce values derived from request headers could be reflected into rendered HTML in an unsafe way, allowing an attacker to poison cached responses and cause script execution for later visitors. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
| CVE-2026-44582 | 3.7 | 0.0002 | 0.05713 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 13.4.6 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, React Server Component responses can be vulnerable to cache poisoning in deployments that rely on shared caches with insufficient response partitioning. In affected conditions, collisions in the _rsc cache-busting value can allow an attacker to poison cache entries so users receive the wrong response variant for a given URL. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
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://luma.com/flourishingsystems | luma.did | Set-Cookie: .luma.com |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application sets cookies with a domain scope that is too broad. Specifically, cookies intended for use within a particular application are configured in such a way that they can be accessed by multiple subdomains of the same primary domain.
Risk description
The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com, hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from the main site.
Recommendation
The `Domain` attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to `Domain=app.mysite.com`
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Goober | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Framer Motion | JavaScript libraries |
| Next.js 16.1.7 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Turbopack | Development |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Strava | Widgets |
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://luma.com/flourishingsystems | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://luma.com/flourishingsystems | 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
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).
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: julissa.ns.cloudflare.com, logan.ns.cloudflare.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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.luma.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc@luma.com; sp=reject; aspf=r;" |
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
We checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| Strava | Widgets |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| luma.com | A | IPv4 address | 104.18.9.136 |
| luma.com | A | IPv4 address | 104.18.8.136 |
| luma.com | NS | Name server | julissa.ns.cloudflare.com |
| luma.com | NS | Name server | logan.ns.cloudflare.com |
| luma.com | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| luma.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| luma.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| luma.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| luma.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| luma.com | SOA | Start of Authority | julissa.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2403990447 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| luma.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700::6812:988 |
| luma.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700::6812:888 |
| luma.com | TXT | Text record | "facebook-domain-verification=qebvljpuwsmzd74oz8omeonm3dbcom" |
| luma.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=XKgi2LT9l_VpFiddbDpWjSHhDRMDW0ilf7AAHqpULEc" |
| luma.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=n_WrrDiqq6uApbpb1CGZY-kSn0WQ-iWiJwnsa-KpODU" |
| luma.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com -all" |
| _dmarc.luma.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:dmarc@luma.com; sp=reject; aspf=r;" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| luma.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
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.