Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://9659cde61.top/

Scanned target: https://9659cde61.top/

Submitted: May 23, 2025 from CG

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	9659彩票网
Description:	No description found

IP Information

IP address	216.118.240.115
Country	HK
AS number	AS45753
Net name	Netsec Limited

IP address	216.118.240.114
Country	HK
AS number	AS45753
Net name	Netsec Limited

IP address	172.247.31.206
Country	US
AS number	AS40065
Net name	Cnservers LLC

IP address	172.247.31.205
Country	US
AS number	AS40065
Net name	Cnservers LLC

IP address	172.247.31.204
Country	US
AS number	AS40065
Net name	Cnservers LLC

IP address	172.247.31.203
Country	US
AS number	AS40065
Net name	Cnservers LLC

IP address	172.247.31.202
Country	US
AS number	AS40065
Net name	Cnservers LLC

IP address	216.118.240.118
Country	HK
AS number	AS45753
Net name	Netsec Limited

IP address	216.118.240.117
Country	HK
AS number	AS45753
Net name	Netsec Limited

IP address	216.118.240.116
Country	HK
AS number	AS45753
Net name	Netsec Limited

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	cdn -
443/tcp	https	cdn -
5000/tcp	http	- -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
FingerprintJS	JavaScript libraries, Browser fingerprinting
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
reCAPTCHA	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://9659cde61.top/	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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://9659cde61.top/	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://9659cde61.top/	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

URL	Evidence
https://9659cde61.top/	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://9659cde61.top/register.do	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 Cookies: SESSION=1fb88891-17d7-4524-8725-90a770bb0bf4	The following form sends inputs of type password plainly in the URL: ` 注册推广码：推广码没有可不填 * 用户名：用户名须为5-11个字母和数字组合 * 密码：密码须为6-16个同时包含字母或数字的组合 * </spa... (truncated)

Vulnerability description

We found a form which is submitted using a GET method and has inputs of the type password. The end result is that passwords are submitted in URLs.

Risk description

Passwords submitted in URLs have a higher chance of being leaked. The main reason is that URLs can be leaked in browser cross-site requests via the Referer header. Additionally, URLs are usually stored in all kinds of logs. If any access or error logs of the server were publicly accessible, an attacker could also harvest password from it.

Recommendation

You should submit passwords using POST rather than GET. This way sensitive data won't be shared to other locations via URLs.

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A4 - Insecure Design

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
FingerprintJS	JavaScript libraries, Browser fingerprinting
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
reCAPTCHA	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.

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://9659cde61.top/	`<input class="top-reg-int" data="tc" id="username" maxlength="15" name="username" placeholder="用户名" style="font-size:14px;" type="text"/> <input class="top-reg-int" id="password" maxlength="15" name="password" placeholder="密码" style="font-size:14px;" type="password"/> <input class="submit" id="btn-sub" onclick="regB()" type="submit" value="立即注册"/>`

Vulnerability description

We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.

Recommendation

Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://9659cde61.top/.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.

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	216.118.240.115
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	216.118.240.114
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	172.247.31.206
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	172.247.31.205
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	172.247.31.204
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	172.247.31.203
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	172.247.31.202
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	216.118.240.118
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	216.118.240.117
9659cde61.top	A	IPv4 address	216.118.240.116
9659cde61.top	NS	Name server	a.share-dns.com
9659cde61.top	NS	Name server	b.share-dns.net
9659cde61.top	SOA	Start of Authority	a.share-dns.com. master.share-dns.com. 1747974673 3600 1200 86400 600

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 5.1	97%

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Python	Programming languages
gunicorn 19.10.0	Web servers

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.