Vulnerability Scan Result

ip_address | 64.29.17.65 |
country | US ![]() |
network_name | - |
asn | - |
ip_address | 216.198.79.65 |
country | US ![]() |
network_name | NBS |
asn | AS11696 |
80/tcp | http | Vercel - |
443/tcp | https | Vercel - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Microsoft Clarity 0.8.19 | Analytics |
Nuxt.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Static site generator |
Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
Pinia | JavaScript libraries |
UnoCSS | UI frameworks |
Vercel | PaaS |
Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
Priority Hints | Performance |
HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://beta.tapchiphowall.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-693 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://beta.tapchiphowall.com/ | 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
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://beta.tapchiphowall.com/_nuxt/builds/meta/ | 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 | Response has an internal server error status code: 500 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's website does not properly handle or incorrectly manages exceptional conditions like Internal Server Errors. These errors can reveal sensitive information through their error messages. For instance, an error message could inadvertently disclose system paths or private application details.
Risk description
The risk exists that attackers could utilize information revealed in Internal Server Error messages to mount more targeted and effective attacks. Detailed error messages could, for example, expose a path traversal weakness (CWE-22) or other exploitable system vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience, and nobody else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic and not being cryptic enough. They should not necessarily reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Such detailed information can be used to refine the original attack to increase the chances of success. If errors must be tracked in some detail, capture them in log messages - but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Avoid recording highly sensitive information such as passwords in any form. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a username is valid or not.
Classification
CWE | CWE-209 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Microsoft Clarity 0.8.19 | Analytics |
Nuxt.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Static site generator |
Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
Pinia | JavaScript libraries |
UnoCSS | UI frameworks |
Vercel | PaaS |
Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
Priority Hints | Performance |
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.
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).
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.
Evidence
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://beta.tapchiphowall.com/_payload.json | GET | Query: afe8ade6-c2a9-48bf-9e71-55b0577f23f6= 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 | Possible API endpoint found at |
Vulnerability description
We found API endpoints while crawling the given web application.
Risk description
These endpoints may represent an attack surface for malicious actors interested in API-specific vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Use the API Scanner to perform a more thorough vulnerability check for these endpoints, if an API specification is present.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Operating System | Accuracy |
---|---|
Android 5.0.1 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Nuxt.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Static site generator |
UnoCSS | UI frameworks |
Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
Vercel | PaaS |
Pinia | JavaScript libraries |
Microsoft Clarity 0.8.19 | Analytics |
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.
Evidence
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
beta.tapchiphowall.com | A | IPv4 address | 216.198.79.65 |
beta.tapchiphowall.com | A | IPv4 address | 64.29.17.65 |
beta.tapchiphowall.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "globalsign.com" |
beta.tapchiphowall.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "letsencrypt.org" |
beta.tapchiphowall.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "sectigo.com" |
beta.tapchiphowall.com | CNAME | Canonical name | 420b5d1ecc0fd7b2.vercel-dns-017.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.