Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/

Submitted: Jan 28, 2026 from FJ

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Screenshot could not be taken.

Title:	שווארמה הרצל 42 - משלוחים באשקלון - חמגשיות שווארמה
Description:

IP Information

ip_address	185.151.199.81
country	IL
network_name	Star Network and Promotion LTD
asn	AS49157

Open Ports

53/tcp	domain	ISC BIND 9.11.36
80/tcp	http	Apache/2 -
443/tcp	https	Apache/2 -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Bootbox.js	JavaScript libraries
FingerprintJS 1.5.1	JavaScript libraries, Browser fingerprinting
Font Awesome	Font scripts
Bootstrap 4.4.1	UI frameworks
Htmx	JavaScript libraries
Apache HTTP Server 2	Web servers
jQuery 1.12.4	JavaScript libraries
Laravel	Web frameworks
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
Loggly	Analytics
HSTS	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/	laravel_session	Set-Cookie: laravel_session=eyJpdiI6IkxmQmpXcWtodStkNWxLdnZEUWxvZXc9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiaU5lQ295bnhjSkErbk9wZVRHVG82MTd2RkJJMHNDUlVrMVRRWVkvT0kwRVVyOEZ5M3RmQVpEZGpPYmpTQVhqUGxQNHpBYy82R2hwemxRVng2NGpWV2loM2F3Qnh1S3ZoRzJRSU5wcWdMbmNZT2NZMlcydTJlQmppL21zZlZBb08iLCJtYWMiOiJjNjFkNWZkN2Q5MjIxOGVmYjA3ZGZiZWQ4YjZkZmY1YTI2ZTE1NDg1YzE2MTUwOGFjZDI2ZGQyZjE4ZTU0ZTBiIiwidGFnIjoiIn0%3D

Vulnerability description

We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.

Risk description

The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.

Recommendation

Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.

Classification

CWE	CWE-614
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	Summary
CVE-2020-11023	6.9	0.32845	0.96758	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.
CVE-2020-11022	6.9	0.19031	0.95148	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.
CVE-2019-11358	6.1	0.02472	0.84895	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.
CVE-2015-9251	6.1	0.27164	0.96247	jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed.

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

URL	Evidence
https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. script-src: script-src should not allow '*' as source. This may enable execution of malicious JavaScript.

https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. script-src: script-src should not allow '*' as source. This may enable execution of malicious JavaScript.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.

Risk description

For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.

Recommendation

Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Bootbox.js	JavaScript libraries
FingerprintJS 1.5.1	JavaScript libraries, Browser fingerprinting
Font Awesome	Font scripts
Bootstrap 4.4.1	UI frameworks
Htmx	JavaScript libraries
Apache HTTP Server 2	Web servers
jQuery 1.12.4	JavaScript libraries
Laravel	Web frameworks
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP	Programming languages
Loggly	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

URL
https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/robots.txt

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).

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/	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

URL	Method	Summary
https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/	OPTIONS	We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 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://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/.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.

Evidence

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://herzel42.click-eat.co.il/	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	Email Address: info@web3d.co.il

Vulnerability description

We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.

Risk description

The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.

Recommendation

Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.

Classification

CWE	CWE-200
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	CISA KEV	Summary
CVE-2023-50868	7.5	0.13757	0.94084	No	The Closest Encloser Proof aspect of the DNS protocol (in RFC 5155 when RFC 9276 guidance is skipped) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption for SHA-1 computations) via DNSSEC responses in a random subdomain attack, aka the "NSEC3" issue. The RFC 5155 specification implies that an algorithm must perform thousands of iterations of a hash function in certain situations.
CVE-2023-50387	7.5	0.50801	0.97766	No	Certain DNSSEC aspects of the DNS protocol (in RFC 4033, 4034, 4035, 6840, and related RFCs) allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via one or more DNSSEC responses, aka the "KeyTrap" issue. One of the concerns is that, when there is a zone with many DNSKEY and RRSIG records, the protocol specification implies that an algorithm must evaluate all combinations of DNSKEY and RRSIG records.
CVE-2023-4408	7.5	0.00245	0.47486	No	The DNS message parsing code in `named` includes a section whose computational complexity is overly high. It does not cause problems for typical DNS traffic, but crafted queries and responses may cause excessive CPU load on the affected `named` instance by exploiting this flaw. This issue affects both authoritative servers and recursive resolvers. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.0.0 through 9.16.45, 9.18.0 through 9.18.21, 9.19.0 through 9.19.19, 9.9.3-S1 through 9.11.37-S1, 9.16.8-S1 through 9.16.45-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.21-S1.
CVE-2023-3341	7.5	0.00222	0.44625	No	The code that processes control channel messages sent to `named` calls certain functions recursively during packet parsing. Recursion depth is only limited by the maximum accepted packet size; depending on the environment, this may cause the packet-parsing code to run out of available stack memory, causing `named` to terminate unexpectedly. Since each incoming control channel message is fully parsed before its contents are authenticated, exploiting this flaw does not require the attacker to hold a valid RNDC key; only network access to the control channel's configured TCP port is necessary. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.2.0 through 9.16.43, 9.18.0 through 9.18.18, 9.19.0 through 9.19.16, 9.9.3-S1 through 9.16.43-S1, and 9.18.0-S1 through 9.18.18-S1.
CVE-2023-2828	7.5	0.00686	0.71207	No	Every `named` instance configured to run as a recursive resolver maintains a cache database holding the responses to the queries it has recently sent to authoritative servers. The size limit for that cache database can be configured using the `max-cache-size` statement in the configuration file; it defaults to 90% of the total amount of memory available on the host. When the size of the cache reaches 7/8 of the configured limit, a cache-cleaning algorithm starts to remove expired and/or least-recently used RRsets from the cache, to keep memory use below the configured limit. It has been discovered that the effectiveness of the cache-cleaning algorithm used in `named` can be severely diminished by querying the resolver for specific RRsets in a certain order, effectively allowing the configured `max-cache-size` limit to be significantly exceeded. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.41, 9.18.0 through 9.18.15, 9.19.0 through 9.19.13, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.41-S1, and 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.15-S1.

Vulnerability description

Vulnerabilities found for Isc Bind 9.11.36

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

We managed to detect that Apache HTTP Server has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).

Version detected: 2 End-of-life date: 2013-07-10 Latest version for the cycle: 2.0.65 This release cycle (2.0) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2002-04-05 and its latest release date was 2013-07-09.

Risk description

Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.

Recommendation

To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
herzel42.click-eat.co.il	A	IPv4 address	185.151.199.81

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.

Operating System	Accuracy
Linux 4.0	100%

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
PHP	Programming languages
Bootstrap	UI frameworks
Laravel	Web frameworks
Apache HTTP Server 2	Web servers
Loggly	Analytics
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
Bootbox.js	JavaScript libraries
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.