Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Just a moment... |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 104.19.145.37 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 104.19.144.37 |
| country | - |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Angular 20.3.17 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Express | Web frameworks, Web servers |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Node.js | Programming languages |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| SafeBase | Security |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Transcend | Cookie compliance |
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-41423 | 8.7 | 0.00039 | 0.11597 | Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.21, 20.3.19, 21.2.9, and 22.0.0-next.8, a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in @angular/platform-server due to improper handling of URLs during Server-Side Rendering (SSR). When an attacker sends a request such as GET /\evil.com/ HTTP/1.1 the server engine (Express, etc.) passes the URL string to Angular’s rendering functions. Because the URL parser normalizes the backslash to a forward slash for HTTP/HTTPS schemes, the internal state of the application is hijacked to believe the current origin is evil.com. This misinterpretation tricks the application into treating the attacker’s domain as the local origin. Consequently, any relative HttpClient requests or PlatformLocation.hostname references are redirected to the attacker controlled server, potentially exposing internal APIs or metadata services. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.21, 20.3.19, 21.2.9, and 22.0.0-next.8. |
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Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities.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
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 |
|---|---|
| Angular 20.3.17 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Express | Web frameworks, Web servers |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Node.js | Programming languages |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| SafeBase | Security |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Transcend | Cookie compliance |
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
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 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://anaconda.org/ | 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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.anaconda.org | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:6ac1e843@mxtoolbox.dmarc-report.com,mailto:dmarc-reports@anaconda.org; ruf=mailto:6ac1e843@forensics.dmarc-report.com,mailto:dmarc-failures@anaconda.org" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.
Risk description
While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.
Recommendation
We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.anaconda.org | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:6ac1e843@mxtoolbox.dmarc-report.com,mailto:dmarc-reports@anaconda.org; ruf=mailto:6ac1e843@forensics.dmarc-report.com,mailto:dmarc-failures@anaconda.org" |
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: cheryl.ns.cloudflare.com, ed.ns.cloudflare.com
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Node.js | Programming languages |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Express | Web frameworks, Web servers |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| SafeBase | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Browser Insights | Analytics, RUM |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| anaconda.org | A | IPv4 address | 104.19.145.37 |
| anaconda.org | A | IPv4 address | 104.19.144.37 |
| anaconda.org | NS | Name server | cheryl.ns.cloudflare.com |
| anaconda.org | NS | Name server | ed.ns.cloudflare.com |
| anaconda.org | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| anaconda.org | MX | Mail server | 10 aspmx2.googlemail.com |
| anaconda.org | MX | Mail server | 10 aspmx3.googlemail.com |
| anaconda.org | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| anaconda.org | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| anaconda.org | SOA | Start of Authority | cheryl.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2403894163 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| anaconda.org | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700::6813:9025 |
| anaconda.org | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700::6813:9125 |
| anaconda.org | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=T5IdtRv-5VazLfNUB7V7zfILX775cZskYOGo4cxTosQ" |
| anaconda.org | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=qL7-9bjnnCgMQ34eNfEY5H6ZYgGoTToYiOMP0O0_TG0" |
| anaconda.org | TXT | Text record | "heritage=external-dns,external-dns/owner=prod-us-east-1-cloudflare,external-dns/resource=gateway/istio-system/dot-org-prod-gateways-istio-gateways-prod-public" |
| anaconda.org | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 redirect=anaconda.org.hosted.spf-report.com" |
| _dmarc.anaconda.org | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:6ac1e843@mxtoolbox.dmarc-report.com,mailto:dmarc-reports@anaconda.org; ruf=mailto:6ac1e843@forensics.dmarc-report.com,mailto:dmarc-failures@anaconda.org" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA9qU9Hak3VdBCULYmQCmlzQN0a9bsZM3N6UDmP+6Ttla8j5BODOPjFXyzniy81F51ty3WyoC2AoTH8soKGXlpcM79mTNNZO5lRlcDNbxOQ5DUYHdo1efosh4/iUK9LbZ5BlALmeeHubjlmZ/z9o6tVJirZNlxv4uxIfeQGAOIHzP8HLfztD0vWoOy9+kQ3/IWH" "mmTD6I1g/+Id88+UMZ0bN6iyztB2PVMTZmS+1yNoix6pJJ4WgKbjst5SzkFcJaymkO/lJjt/pTNzlM5WP4NlOXya7ILKGzP99h7SohB0FXlzMRAHTy4fHYK0SLNs+uJtA+Prt+M7qiaWZ8Aco6SGwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Node.js | Programming languages |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Express | Web frameworks, Web servers |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| SafeBase | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Node.js | Programming languages |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Express | Web frameworks, Web servers |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| SafeBase | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Node.js | Programming languages |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Express | Web frameworks, Web servers |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| SafeBase | Security |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| anaconda.org | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 redirect=anaconda.org.hosted.spf-report.com" |