Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Site Title |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 192.0.78.31 |
| Country | US  |
| AS number | AS2635 |
| Net name | Automattic Inc |
| IP address | 192.0.78.30 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS2635 |
| Net name | Automattic Inc |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Apple Sign-in | Authentication |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Gravatar | Miscellaneous |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| WordPress.com | PaaS |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://nursinglawyer2025.law.blog/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://nursinglawyer2025.law.blog/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://nursinglawyer2025.law.blog/ | 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 | Error message Internal Server Error found in: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application does not properly handle exceptional conditions, leading to error messages that reveal sensitive information.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker may use the contents of error messages to help launch another, more focused attack. For example, an attempt to exploit a path traversal weakness (CWE-22) might yield the full pathname of the installed application.
Recommendation
It is recommended treating all exceptions of the application flow. Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-209 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A4 - Insecure Design |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://nursinglawyer2025.law.blog/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Apple Sign-in | Authentication |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Gravatar | Miscellaneous |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| WordPress.com | PaaS |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| HSTS | Security |
| 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
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
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).
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
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
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | A | IPv4 address | 192.0.78.31 |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | A | IPv4 address | 192.0.78.30 |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | NS | Name server | ns2.automattic.com |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | NS | Name server | ns4.automattic.com |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | NS | Name server | ns1.automattic.com |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | NS | Name server | ns3.automattic.com |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.automattic.com. hostmaster.automattic.com. 2016111112 28800 7200 604800 86400 |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
| nursinglawyer2025.law.blog | CNAME | Canonical name | law.blog |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| IPCop 2.0 (Linux 2.6.32) | 97% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Apple Sign-in | Authentication |
| WordPress.com | PaaS |
| HSTS | Security |
| 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.