Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://t.me/N26BankOfficialSupport14

Scanned target: https://t.me/N26BankOfficialSupport14

Submitted: Jun 09, 2026 from KM

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Screenshot could not be taken.

Title:	Telegram: Contact @N26BankOfficialSupport14
Description:	No description found

IP Information

ip_address	149.154.167.99
country	GB
network_name	Telegram Messenger Inc
asn	AS62041

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	nginx 1.30.1
443/tcp	https	nginx 1.30.1

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Bootstrap	UI frameworks
Nginx 1.30.1	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
Paper.js	JavaScript graphics
HSTS	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Bootstrap	UI frameworks
Nginx 1.30.1	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
Paper.js	JavaScript graphics
HSTS	Security

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.

Classification

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

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://t.me/N26BankOfficialSupport14	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.

Risk description

The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.

Recommendation

The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://t.me/N26BankOfficialSupport14	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

URL	Evidence
https://t.me/N26BankOfficialSupport14	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: script-src directive is missing. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'.

https://t.me/N26BankOfficialSupport14

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: script-src directive is missing. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'.

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-1021
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.t.me	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s"

Vulnerability description

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

Risk description

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

Recommendation

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

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.t.me	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s"

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.

Operating System	Accuracy
FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE	91%

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
t.me	A	IPv4 address	149.154.167.99
t.me	NS	Name server	ns-cloud-b4.googledomains.com
t.me	NS	Name server	ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com
t.me	NS	Name server	ns-cloud-b3.googledomains.com
t.me	NS	Name server	ns-cloud-b2.googledomains.com
t.me	SOA	Start of Authority	ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com. dns.jomax.net.t.me. 2017053102 28800 7200 604800 600
t.me	AAAA	IPv6 address	2001:67c:4e8:f004::9
t.me	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 -all"
_dmarc.t.me	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s"

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.

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
t.me	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 -all"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Paper.js	JavaScript graphics
Nginx 1.30.1	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Bootstrap	UI frameworks
HSTS	Security
Open Graph	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.