Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Mike Pringle - Mini Portfolio |
| Description: | Mike Pringle is a freelance web developer in Edwardsville, Illinois, USA. |
| IP address | 138.68.44.61 |
| Country | US  |
| AS number | AS14061 |
| Net name | Digitalocean LLC |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 7.2p2 Ubuntu 4ubuntu2.10+esm7 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | jquery 3.1.1 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 3.1.1 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 3.1.1 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
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.
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-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application's web server presents an SSL/TLS certificate that is not trusted by web browsers. This issue typically arises when the server uses a self-signed certificate, a certificate from an untrusted authority, or a certificate that has expired or is invalid for other reasons. The lack of a trusted certificate makes it challenging for users to verify the authenticity of the server, undermining the security of the SSL/TLS connection.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could easily mount a man-in-the-middle attack in order to sniff the SSL communication by presenting the user a fake SSL certificate.
Recommendation
We recommend you to configure a trusted SSL certificate for the web server. Examples of how to configure SSL for various servers for Apache and Nginx are referenced.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pringledevelopment.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pringledevelopment.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pringledevelopment.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://pringledevelopment.com/ | 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 |
|
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application is serving mixed content. This occurs when initial HTML is loaded over a secure HTTPS connection, but other resources (such as images, videos, stylesheets, scripts) are loaded over an insecure HTTP connection. This is called mixed content because both HTTP and HTTPS content are being loaded to display the same page, and the initial request was secure over HTTPS.
Risk description
The risk is that the insecurely loaded resources (HTTP) on an otherwise secure page (HTTPS) can be intercepted or manipulated by attackers, potentially leading to eavesdropping or content tampering.
Recommendation
Ensure that all external resources the page references are loaded using HTTPS.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-311 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pringledevelopment.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
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
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
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
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible SSH service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-05-23 12:03 EEST
Nmap scan report for pringledevelopment.com (138.68.44.61)
Host is up (0.14s latency).
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 7.2p2 Ubuntu 4ubuntu2.10+esm7 (Ubuntu Linux; protocol 2.0)
| ssh-auth-methods:
| Supported authentication methods:
| publickey
|_ password
Service Info: OS: Linux; CPE: cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2.05 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the SSH service with username/password authentication is publicly accessible. Network administrators often use remote administration protocols to control devices like switches, routers, and other essential systems. However, allowing these services to be accessible via the Internet can increase security risks, creating potential opportunities for attacks on the organization.
Risk description
Exposing this service online with username/password authentication can enable attackers to launch authentication attacks, like guessing login credentials, and potentially gaining unauthorized access. Vulnerabilities, such as unpatched software, protocol flaws, or backdoors could also be exploited. An example is the CVE-2024-3094 (XZ Utils Backdoor) vulnerability.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off SSH with username/password authentication access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the SSH service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, it is advisable to utilize SSH Public Key Authentication since it employs a key pair to verify the identity of a user or process.
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 3.1.1
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; 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
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 3.1.1
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; 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
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| pringledevelopment.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:mailgun.org 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.pringledevelopment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=s;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.pringledevelopment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=s;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.pringledevelopment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=s;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.pringledevelopment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=s;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| pringledevelopment.com | A | IPv4 address | 138.68.44.61 |
| pringledevelopment.com | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com |
| pringledevelopment.com | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b3.googledomains.com |
| pringledevelopment.com | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b2.googledomains.com |
| pringledevelopment.com | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b4.googledomains.com |
| pringledevelopment.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mxb.mailgun.org |
| pringledevelopment.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mxa.mailgun.org |
| pringledevelopment.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com. cloud-dns-hostmaster.google.com. 16 21600 3600 259200 300 |
| pringledevelopment.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:mailgun.org include:_spf.google.com ~all" |
| _dmarc.pringledevelopment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; aspf=s;" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Linux 3.10 - 4.11 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailo | rsa | 1152 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCuqDUMKyaDSgUnzHS6Tbpaqcm8od66sIeLjc+TxNZUhN3ArmD2Qv1Giudh3s6h/BrFz2sq9k++14pFMANNMz86vXxXUBLA4fmSlhNc4vMQOsFYQ466T1VxnbtmShnGRb4hNzBVWbfnmJlbhcCV/t/yI0jS" "++jC8NpvU736lMLtSQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| jQuery 3.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| jQuery CDN | CDN |
| jQuery 3.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics | 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.