Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://plan.usecentel.com/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://plan.usecentel.com/

Submitted: May 12, 2026 from DZ

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

medium

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Screenshot could not be taken.

Title:	Centel Plan
Description:	Personal SDLC orchestration tool

IP Information

ip_address	142.251.29.121
country	US
network_name	Google LLC
asn	AS15169

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	Google httpd -
443/tcp	https	- -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Clerk	Authentication
Google Cloud	IaaS
Google Cloud Load Balancing	Load balancers
Google Cloud Trace	Performance
Next.js 16.1.6	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
Next.js App Router	JavaScript frameworks, Web servers
Turbopack	Development
HeroUI	UI frameworks
PostHog	Analytics
React	JavaScript frameworks
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Priority Hints	Performance

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	Summary
CVE-2026-27980	6.9	0.00022	0.06445	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-2026-27979	6.9	0.00019	0.05466	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 16.0.1 and prior to version 16.1.7, a request containing the `next-resume: 1` header (corresponding with a PPR resume request) would buffer request bodies without consistently enforcing `maxPostponedStateSize` in certain setups. The previous mitigation protected minimal-mode deployments, but equivalent non-minimal deployments remained vulnerable to the same unbounded postponed resume-body buffering behavior. In applications using the App Router with Partial Prerendering capability enabled (via `experimental.ppr` or `cacheComponents`), an attacker could send oversized `next-resume` POST payloads that were buffered without consistent size enforcement in non-minimal deployments, causing excessive memory usage and potential denial of service. This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by enforcing size limits across all postponed-body buffering paths and erroring when limits are exceeded. If upgrading is not immediately possible, block requests containing the `next-resume` header, as this is never valid to be sent from an untrusted client.
CVE-2026-29057	6.3	0.00031	0.09154	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-2026-27978	5.3	0.00008	0.00761	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 16.0.1 and prior to version 16.1.7, `origin: null` was treated as a "missing" origin during Server Action CSRF validation. As a result, requests from opaque contexts (such as sandboxed iframes) could bypass origin verification instead of being validated as cross-origin requests. An attacker could induce a victim browser to submit Server Actions from a sandboxed context, potentially executing state-changing actions with victim credentials (CSRF). This is fixed in version 16.1.7 by treating `'null'` as an explicit origin value and enforcing host/origin checks unless `'null'` is explicitly allowlisted in `experimental.serverActions.allowedOrigins`. If upgrading is not immediately possible, add CSRF tokens for sensitive Server Actions, prefer `SameSite=Strict` on sensitive auth cookies, and/or do not allow `'null'` in `serverActions.allowedOrigins` unless intentionally required and additionally protected.
CVE-2026-27977	2.3	0.00006	0.00301	Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. Starting in version 16.0.1 and prior to version 16.1.7, in `next dev`, cross-site protection for internal websocket endpoints could treat `Origin: null` as a bypass case even if `allowedDevOrigins` is configured, allowing privacy-sensitive/opaque contexts (for example sandboxed documents) to connect unexpectedly. If a dev server is reachable from attacker-controlled content, an attacker may be able to connect to the HMR websocket channel and interact with dev websocket traffic. This affects development mode only. Apps without a configured `allowedDevOrigins` still allow connections from any origin. The issue is fixed in version 16.1.7 by validating `Origin: null` through the same cross-site origin-allowance checks used for other origins. If upgrading is not immediately possible, do not expose `next dev` to untrusted networks and/or block websocket upgrades to `/_next/webpack-hmr` when `Origin` is `null` at the proxy.

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://plan.usecentel.com/	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://plan.usecentel.com/	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

Software / Version	Category
Clerk	Authentication
Google Cloud	IaaS
Google Cloud Load Balancing	Load balancers
Google Cloud Trace	Performance
Next.js 16.1.6	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
Next.js App Router	JavaScript frameworks, Web servers
Turbopack	Development
HeroUI	UI frameworks
PostHog	Analytics
React	JavaScript frameworks
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Priority Hints	Performance

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://plan.usecentel.com/	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://plan.usecentel.com/	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	Method	Summary
https://plan.usecentel.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

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://plan.usecentel.com/.well-known/security.txt

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

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Next.js	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
HeroUI	UI frameworks
Google Cloud Load Balancing	Load balancers
React	JavaScript frameworks
Google Cloud	IaaS
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Google Cloud Trace	Performance

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
plan.usecentel.com	A	IPv4 address	142.250.129.121
plan.usecentel.com	AAAA	IPv6 address	2a00:1450:4009:c0b::79
plan.usecentel.com	CNAME	Canonical name	ghs.googlehosted.com

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.