Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | يُجيب - منصة الدعاء الجماعي | الدعاء يجمعنا |
| Description: | يُجيب - منصة تجمع قلوب الناس على الدعاء لبعضهم بظهر الغيب. ادعُ لغيرك أو اطلب الدعاء لنفسك ولمن تحب. كل دعوة تُرفع هنا يجتمع عليها القلوب. إنتاج الغافقي |
| ip_address | 173.249.63.194 |
| country | FR  |
| network_name | Contabo GmbH |
| asn | AS51167 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
2222/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 8.9p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu0.15 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Next.js 14.2.35 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Tailwind CSS | UI frameworks |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44573 | 7.5 | 0.00038 | 0.11321 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 12.2.0 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, Applications using the Pages Router with i18n configured and middleware/proxy-based authorization can allow unauthorized access to protected page data through locale-less /_next/data/<buildId>/<page>.json requests. In affected configurations, middleware does not run for the unprefixed data route, allowing an attacker to retrieve SSR JSON for protected pages without passing the intended authorization checks. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
| CVE-2026-27980 | 6.9 | 0.00022 | 0.06457 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 10.0.0 and prior to version 16.1.7, the default Next.js image optimization disk cache (`/_next/image`) did not have a configurable upper bound, allowing unbounded cache growth. An attacker could generate many unique image-optimization variants and exhaust disk space, causing denial of service. This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by adding an LRU-backed disk cache with `images.maximumDiskCacheSize`, including eviction of least-recently-used entries when the limit is exceeded. Setting `maximumDiskCacheSize: 0` disables disk caching. If upgrading is not immediately possible, periodically clean `.next/cache/images` and/or reduce variant cardinality (e.g., tighten values for `images.localPatterns`, `images.remotePatterns`, and `images.qualities`). |
| CVE-2026-29057 | 6.3 | 0.00031 | 0.09206 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 9.5.0 and prior to versions 15.5.13 and 16.1.7, when Next.js rewrites proxy traffic to an external backend, a crafted `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` request using `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` could trigger request boundary disagreement between the proxy and backend. This could allow request smuggling through rewritten routes. An attacker could smuggle a second request to unintended backend routes (for example, internal/admin endpoints), bypassing assumptions that only the configured rewrite destination/path is reachable. This does not impact applications hosted on providers that handle rewrites at the CDN level, such as Vercel. The vulnerability originated in an upstream library vendored by Next.js. It is fixed in Next.js 15.5.13 and 16.1.7 by updating that dependency’s behavior so `content-length: 0` is added only when both `content-length` and `transfer-encoding` are absent, and `transfer-encoding` is no longer removed in that code path. If upgrading is not immediately possible, block chunked `DELETE`/`OPTIONS` requests on rewritten routes at the edge/proxy, and/or enforce authentication/authorization on backend routes. |
| CVE-2026-44577 | 5.9 | 0.00013 | 0.02431 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 10.0.0 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, when self-hosting Next.js with the default image loader, the Image Optimization API fetches local images entirely into memory without enforcing a maximum size limit. An attacker could cause out-of-memory conditions by requesting large local assets from the /_next/image endpoint that match the images.localPatterns configuration (by default, all patterns are allowed). This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
| CVE-2025-59471 | 5.9 | 0.00027 | 0.07928 | A denial of service vulnerability exists in self-hosted Next.js applications that have `remotePatterns` configured for the Image Optimizer. The image optimization endpoint (`/_next/image`) loads external images entirely into memory without enforcing a maximum size limit, allowing an attacker to cause out-of-memory conditions by requesting optimization of arbitrarily large images. This vulnerability requires that `remotePatterns` is configured to allow image optimization from external domains and that the attacker can serve or control a large image on an allowed domain. Strongly consider upgrading to 15.5.10 or 16.1.5 to reduce risk and prevent availability issues in Next applications. |
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://yojeeb.com/_next/static | 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://yojeeb.com/ | 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-1021 |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Lucide | Font scripts |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Next.js 14.2.35 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Next.js App Router | JavaScript frameworks, Web servers |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Tailwind CSS | UI frameworks |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| 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://yojeeb.com/_next/static | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://yojeeb.com/_next/static | 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://yojeeb.com/_next/static | 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 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 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://yojeeb.com/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 405 status code and the header: `Allow: GET, HEAD` 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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns-223-b.gandi.net, ns-188-a.gandi.net, ns-128-c.gandi.net
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
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
We didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.
Vulnerability description
We found that the target server has no DMARC policy configured. A missing DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy means that the domain is not enforcing any DMARC policies to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks. Without DMARC, even if SPF (Sender Policy Framework) or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are configured, there is no mechanism to tell receiving email servers how to handle messages that fail authentication. This leaves the domain vulnerable to abuse, such as email spoofing and impersonation.
Risk description
Without a DMARC policy, your domain is highly vulnerable to email spoofing, allowing attackers to impersonate your brand and send fraudulent emails that appear legitimate. This can lead to phishing attacks targeting your customers, employees, or partners, potentially resulting in stolen credentials, financial loss, or unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Additionally, repeated spoofing attempts can severely damage your brand's reputation, as recipients may lose trust in communications from your domain, associating your brand with malicious activity. The absence of DMARC also prevents you from monitoring and mitigating email-based attacks, leaving your domain exposed to ongoing abuse.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing a DMARC policy for your domain. Start by configuring a DMARC record with a policy of p=none, which will allow you to monitor email flows without impacting legitimate emails. This initial setup helps identify how emails from your domain are being processed by recipient servers. Once you’ve verified that legitimate emails are passing SPF and DKIM checks, you can gradually enforce stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject to protect against spoofing and phishing attacks. Additionally, include rua and ruf email addresses in the DMARC record to receive aggregate and forensic reports. These reports will provide valuable insights into authentication failures and help you detect any spoofing attempts.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 4.15 - 5.6 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| yojeeb.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_mailcust.gandi.net ?all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Tailwind CSS | UI frameworks |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| HSTS | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| yojeeb.com | A | IPv4 address | 173.249.63.194 |
| yojeeb.com | NS | Name server | ns-223-b.gandi.net |
| yojeeb.com | NS | Name server | ns-188-a.gandi.net |
| yojeeb.com | NS | Name server | ns-128-c.gandi.net |
| yojeeb.com | MX | Mail server | 50 fb.mail.gandi.net |
| yojeeb.com | MX | Mail server | 10 spool.mail.gandi.net |
| yojeeb.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.gandi.net. hostmaster.gandi.net. 1778716800 10800 3600 604800 10800 |
| yojeeb.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_mailcust.gandi.net ?all" |
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.