Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | BizTrack | Smart Financial Tracking for Small Business |
| Description: | Track your business expenses and revenue effortlessly with AI-powered tools and gain valuable insights into your financial health. |
| ip_address | 35.219.200.17 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Google LLC |
| asn | AS19527 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Envoy | Reverse proxies |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app/ | 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://studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app/ | 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://studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Envoy | Reverse proxies |
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
Website is accessible.
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.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app/ | 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app | A | IPv4 address | 35.219.200.17 |
| studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e2.googledomains.com |
| studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e3.googledomains.com |
| studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e1.googledomains.com |
| studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e4.googledomains.com |
| studio--biztrack-expenses.us-central1.hosted.app | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-cloud-e1.googledomains.com. cloud-dns-hostmaster.google.com. 1 21600 3600 259200 300 |
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 |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Envoy | Reverse proxies |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
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.