Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Regained Relics | Fusion Mineral Paint & DIY Upcycling Supplies |
| Description: | Shop curated DIY furniture paints, Fusion Mineral Paint, Alchemy, Milk Paint by Fusion, brushes, finishing products, stencils, decor transfers and other upcycling supplies at Regained Relics in Nova Scotia. Free shipping over $100 and 10% off your first order with code FIRST10. |
| ip_address | 23.227.38.65 |
| country | CA  |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | Cloudflare http proxy - |
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 | Cloudflare http proxy - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Smile App | Shopify apps |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Axios 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.37.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Google Pay | Payment processors |
| PayPal | Payment processors |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| Shop Pay | Payment processors |
| Shopify | Ecommerce |
| Smile | Loyalty & rewards |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| American Express | Payment processors |
| Apple Pay | Payment processors |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Mastercard | Payment processors |
| HSTS | Security |
| Visa | Payment processors |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-44494 | 8.7 | 0.0049 | 0.38464 | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. From 1.0.0 to before 1.16.0, the Axios library is vulnerable to a Prototype Pollution "Gadget" attack that allows any Object.prototype pollution in the application's dependency tree to be escalated into a full Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack — intercepting, reading, and modifying all HTTP traffic including authentication credentials. The HTTP adapter at lib/adapters/http.js:670 reads config.proxy via standard property access, which traverses the prototype chain. Because proxy is not present in Axios defaults, the merged config object has no own proxy property, making it trivially injectable via prototype pollution. Once injected, setProxy() routes all HTTP requests through the attacker's proxy server. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44492 | 8.6 | 0.00535 | 0.41064 | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Prior to 0.32.0 and 1.16.0, Axios does not normalise IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. When NO_PROXY lists an IPv4 address such as 127.0.0.1 or 169.254.169.254, a request URL using the IPv4-mapped IPv6 form (::ffff:7f00:1, ::ffff:a9fe:a9fe) still routes through the configured proxy. Node.js resolves these addresses to the underlying IPv4 host, so the request reaches the internal service via the proxy rather than being blocked. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44487 | 8.2 | 0.00385 | 0.30318 | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Prior to 0.32.0 and 1.16.0, Axios’s Node.js HTTP adapter may forward a Proxy-Authorization header to a redirected origin during specific proxy-to-direct redirect flows. This affects Node.js usage, where an initial HTTP request is sent through an authenticated HTTP proxy, redirects are followed, and the redirected URL is no longer proxied. Under affected redirect shapes, the final origin can receive the proxy credential that was intended only for the outbound proxy. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44496 | 7.5 | 0.00345 | 0.26355 | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Axios versions before 0.32.0 on the 0.x line and before 1.16.0 on the 1.x line build a regular expression from the configured XSRF cookie name without escaping regex metacharacters. In standard browser environments, an attacker who can influence the cookie name passed to axios can cause expensive regex backtracking while axios reads document.cookie. The practical impact is client-side availability degradation, such as freezing the affected browser tab while axios prepares a request. The issue does not affect ordinary Node.js HTTP adapter usage, React Native, or web workers, where axios does not read document.cookie. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44488 | 7.5 | 0.00344 | 0.26301 | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Axios versions 1.7.0 through 1.15.x did not enforce configured request and response size limits when requests were sent with the fetch adapter. Applications that selected adapter: 'fetch', or ran in environments where axios resolved to the fetch adapter, could receive or send bodies larger than maxContentLength or maxBodyLength despite those limits being explicitly configured. This can cause resource exhaustion in server-side usage when a malicious or compromised server returns an oversized response, when an attacker can supply a large data: URL, or when an application forwards attacker-controlled request bodies through axios while relying on maxBodyLength as a boundary. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://regainedrelics.ca/ | localization, cart_currency | Set-Cookie: localization=CA Set-Cookie: cart_currency=CAD |
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
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://regainedrelics.ca/ | localization, cart_currency | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: localization=CA Set-Cookie: cart_currency=CAD |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1004 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://regainedrelics.ca/ | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
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-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://regainedrelics.ca/contact | 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-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://regainedrelics.ca/ | 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://regainedrelics.ca/contact | 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
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Smile App | Shopify apps |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Axios 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.37.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Google Pay | Payment processors |
| PayPal | Payment processors |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| Shop Pay | Payment processors |
| Shopify | Ecommerce |
| Smile | Loyalty & rewards |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| American Express | Payment processors |
| Apple Pay | Payment processors |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Mastercard | Payment processors |
| HSTS | Security |
| Visa | Payment processors |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
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 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://regainedrelics.ca/ | 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: RegainedRelics@gmail.com |
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-2026-44494 | 8.7 | 0.0049 | 0.38464 | No | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. From 1.0.0 to before 1.16.0, the Axios library is vulnerable to a Prototype Pollution "Gadget" attack that allows any Object.prototype pollution in the application's dependency tree to be escalated into a full Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attack — intercepting, reading, and modifying all HTTP traffic including authentication credentials. The HTTP adapter at lib/adapters/http.js:670 reads config.proxy via standard property access, which traverses the prototype chain. Because proxy is not present in Axios defaults, the merged config object has no own proxy property, making it trivially injectable via prototype pollution. Once injected, setProxy() routes all HTTP requests through the attacker's proxy server. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44492 | 8.6 | 0.00535 | 0.41064 | No | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Prior to 0.32.0 and 1.16.0, Axios does not normalise IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses. When NO_PROXY lists an IPv4 address such as 127.0.0.1 or 169.254.169.254, a request URL using the IPv4-mapped IPv6 form (::ffff:7f00:1, ::ffff:a9fe:a9fe) still routes through the configured proxy. Node.js resolves these addresses to the underlying IPv4 host, so the request reaches the internal service via the proxy rather than being blocked. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44487 | 8.2 | 0.00385 | 0.30318 | No | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Prior to 0.32.0 and 1.16.0, Axios’s Node.js HTTP adapter may forward a Proxy-Authorization header to a redirected origin during specific proxy-to-direct redirect flows. This affects Node.js usage, where an initial HTTP request is sent through an authenticated HTTP proxy, redirects are followed, and the redirected URL is no longer proxied. Under affected redirect shapes, the final origin can receive the proxy credential that was intended only for the outbound proxy. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44496 | 7.5 | 0.00345 | 0.26355 | No | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Axios versions before 0.32.0 on the 0.x line and before 1.16.0 on the 1.x line build a regular expression from the configured XSRF cookie name without escaping regex metacharacters. In standard browser environments, an attacker who can influence the cookie name passed to axios can cause expensive regex backtracking while axios reads document.cookie. The practical impact is client-side availability degradation, such as freezing the affected browser tab while axios prepares a request. The issue does not affect ordinary Node.js HTTP adapter usage, React Native, or web workers, where axios does not read document.cookie. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
| CVE-2026-44488 | 7.5 | 0.00344 | 0.26301 | No | Axios is a promise based HTTP client for the browser and Node.js. Axios versions 1.7.0 through 1.15.x did not enforce configured request and response size limits when requests were sent with the fetch adapter. Applications that selected adapter: 'fetch', or ran in environments where axios resolved to the fetch adapter, could receive or send bodies larger than maxContentLength or maxBodyLength despite those limits being explicitly configured. This can cause resource exhaustion in server-side usage when a malicious or compromised server returns an oversized response, when an attacker can supply a large data: URL, or when an application forwards attacker-controlled request bodies through axios while relying on maxBodyLength as a boundary. This vulnerability is fixed in 0.32.0 and 1.16.0. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Axios 1.13.2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.regainedrelics.ca | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:aoru0zdy@ag.eu.dmarcian.com;" |
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.regainedrelics.ca | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:aoru0zdy@ag.eu.dmarcian.com;" |
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns02.squarespacedns.com, dns1.p04.nsone.net, dns4.p04.nsone.net, dns3.p04.nsone.net, ns03.squarespacedns.com, ns04.squarespacedns.com, dns2.p04.nsone.net, ns01.squarespacedns.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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.regainedrelics.ca | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:aoru0zdy@ag.eu.dmarcian.com;" |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Shopify | Ecommerce |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| Smile App | Shopify apps |
| Shop Pay | Payment processors |
| Visa | Payment processors |
| PayPal | Payment processors |
| Mastercard | Payment processors |
| Google Pay | Payment processors |
| Apple Pay | Payment processors |
| American Express | Payment processors |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Smile | Loyalty & rewards |
| core-js 2.6.12 | JavaScript libraries |
| Axios 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 11.0-RELEASE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| regainedrelics.ca | A | IPv4 address | 23.227.38.65 |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | ns02.squarespacedns.com |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | dns1.p04.nsone.net |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | dns4.p04.nsone.net |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | dns3.p04.nsone.net |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | ns03.squarespacedns.com |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | ns04.squarespacedns.com |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | dns2.p04.nsone.net |
| regainedrelics.ca | NS | Name server | ns01.squarespacedns.com |
| regainedrelics.ca | MX | Mail server | 0 pixel.mxrouting.net |
| regainedrelics.ca | SOA | Start of Authority | dns1.p01.nsone.net. hostmaster.nsone.net. 1684937452 43200 7200 1209600 3600 |
| regainedrelics.ca | TXT | Text record | "\"v=spf1 include:mxroute.com -all\"" |
| _dmarc.regainedrelics.ca | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:aoru0zdy@ag.eu.dmarcian.com;" |
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.