Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | No title found |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 104.26.3.209 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 172.67.71.88 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 104.26.2.209 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | cloudflare - |
2082/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8443/tcp | https-alt | cloudflare - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Next.js 14.2.35 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44578 | 8.6 | 0.04004 | 0.88554 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 13.4.13 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, self-hosted applications using the built-in Node.js server can be vulnerable to server-side request forgery through crafted WebSocket upgrade requests. An attacker can cause the server to proxy requests to arbitrary internal or external destinations, which may expose internal services or cloud metadata endpoints. Vercel-hosted deployments are not affected. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
| CVE-2026-44573 | 7.5 | 0.0004 | 0.12135 | 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 | 0.06472 | 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 | 0.09224 | 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-2026-44580 | 6.1 | 0.00011 | 0.01522 | Next.js is a React framework for building full-stack web applications. From 13.0.0 to before 15.5.16 and 16.2.5, applications that use beforeInteractive scripts together with untrusted content can be vulnerable to cross-site scripting. In affected versions, serialized script content was not escaped safely before being embedded into the document, which could allow attacker-controlled input to break out of the intended script context and execute arbitrary JavaScript in a visitor's browser. This vulnerability is fixed in 15.5.16 and 16.2.5. |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Next.js 14.2.35 | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
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 |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "ca3-046b5c51a436461f9d3b02739f8a2923" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "github-verification=WIVTPSMTRVQIXGFAZRHAPLKNHVDQUECXBRFSYPGZQ" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=7YMhqR_TOfkZMFb7d74xqWl4jVKY3sZWX7pbAjp2AZQ" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=BtblOgZijPYtVQDxhcvkzFD3OBZ-hGr7ydtr1biy0zc" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "mailfence-verification=RFI2Iy2LPhio3E6cQY1EQ76C6vw1SZbL7EZ0xIFR" |
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: chase.ns.cloudflare.com, millie.ns.cloudflare.com
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| json-schema.org | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.mailfence.com include:_spf.google.com ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Algolia | Search engines |
| Cloudflare Browser Insights | Analytics, RUM |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| HTTP/3 | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Algolia | Search engines |
| Cloudflare Browser Insights | Analytics, RUM |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| HTTP/3 | 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.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| json-schema.org | A | IPv4 address | 172.67.71.88 |
| json-schema.org | A | IPv4 address | 104.26.2.209 |
| json-schema.org | A | IPv4 address | 104.26.3.209 |
| json-schema.org | NS | Name server | chase.ns.cloudflare.com |
| json-schema.org | NS | Name server | millie.ns.cloudflare.com |
| json-schema.org | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| json-schema.org | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| json-schema.org | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| json-schema.org | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| json-schema.org | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| json-schema.org | SOA | Start of Authority | chase.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2399781142 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| json-schema.org | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:20::ac43:4758 |
| json-schema.org | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:20::681a:2d1 |
| json-schema.org | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:20::681a:3d1 |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "ca3-046b5c51a436461f9d3b02739f8a2923" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "github-verification=WIVTPSMTRVQIXGFAZRHAPLKNHVDQUECXBRFSYPGZQ" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=7YMhqR_TOfkZMFb7d74xqWl4jVKY3sZWX7pbAjp2AZQ" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=BtblOgZijPYtVQDxhcvkzFD3OBZ-hGr7ydtr1biy0zc" |
| json-schema.org | TXT | Text record | "mailfence-verification=RFI2Iy2LPhio3E6cQY1EQ76C6vw1SZbL7EZ0xIFR" |
| json-schema.org | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.mailfence.com include:_spf.google.com ~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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Algolia | Search engines |
| Cloudflare Browser Insights | Analytics, RUM |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| HTTP/3 | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Algolia | Search engines |
| Cloudflare Browser Insights | Analytics, RUM |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| HTTP/3 | 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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection