- Banner
- 220 hosting2.neftekamsk.ru ESMTP Exim 4.74 Tue, 11 Aug 2026 11:53:33 +0500
Raw response
554 SMTP synchronization error
Host
Tags: End-of-life software
As of our latest check on 2026-08-11, 89.189.129.72 (JSC "Ufanet", AS24955, Russia) had 2 open ports (25, 80) and 52 known CVEs, 1 known to be exploited.
Open ports and CVEs as of our latest check of this host, 2026-08-11.
CVEs by severity: CRITICAL 14 HIGH 24 MEDIUM 12 LOW 2
A match is an indication, not proof: it is based on the software version a service reported, and fixes are often backported without changing the version. See the list
Not counted: 46 on a distribution build — the fix may be backported (http_server 2.0.64). See them
Not counted: 2 only affect another platform (http_server 2.0.64). See them
Not a Tor relay, not a VPN or privacy relay address, and not on a current public blocklist.
554 SMTP synchronization error
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 06:51:22 GMT Server: Apache/2.0.64 (FreeBSD) mod_fastcgi/2.4.6 Location: https://cttd-neftekamsk.ru/ Content-Length: 333 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>301 Moved Permanently</title> </head><body> <h1>Moved Permanently</h1> <p>The document has moved <a href="https://cttd-neftekamsk.ru/">here</a>.</p> <hr> <address>Apache/2.0.64 (FreeBSD) mod_fastcgi/2.4.6 Server at 89.189.129.72 Port 80</address> </body></html>
These CVEs were matched on software built by an operating-system distribution whose package revision the service does not show. Distributions often fix a flaw without changing the upstream version number, so whether this build is affected cannot be told from its version. They are not counted. 1 of them is known to be exploited.
CVEs by severity: CRITICAL 11 HIGH 16 MEDIUM 18 LOW 1
| CVE | Software |
|---|---|
| CVE-2021-40438 CRITICAL 9.0 known exploited | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2009-3555 CRITICAL 9.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2021-39275 CRITICAL 9.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2021-44790 CRITICAL 9.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-22720 CRITICAL 9.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-31813 CRITICAL 9.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-28780 CRITICAL 9.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2017-9788 CRITICAL 9.1 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-22721 CRITICAL 9.1 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-28615 CRITICAL 9.1 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-42535 CRITICAL 9.1 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-24072 HIGH 8.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-93546 HIGH 8.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2025-58098 HIGH 8.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2011-3192 HIGH 7.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2006-20001 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2017-9798 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2018-1303 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2021-34798 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-22719 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-29404 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-30556 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2023-31122 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-29169 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-34059 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2025-49812 HIGH 7.4 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2023-38709 HIGH 7.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-29170 MEDIUM 6.1 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2018-1301 MEDIUM 5.9 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2018-1302 MEDIUM 5.9 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-28614 MEDIUM 5.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-37436 MEDIUM 5.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-33857 MEDIUM 5.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-34032 MEDIUM 5.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2013-1862 MEDIUM 5.1 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2007-6750 MEDIUM 5.0 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2011-3368 MEDIUM 5.0 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2015-0228 MEDIUM 5.0 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2026-33006 MEDIUM 4.8 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2012-0031 MEDIUM 4.6 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2011-3607 MEDIUM 4.4 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2011-0419 MEDIUM 4.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2011-4317 MEDIUM 4.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2012-0053 MEDIUM 4.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2016-8612 MEDIUM 4.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2011-4415 LOW 1.2 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
These CVEs need a platform this host visibly does not run (for example a flaw of the Windows build on a Linux host). They are not counted.
CVEs by severity: HIGH 1 MEDIUM 1
| CVE | Software |
|---|---|
| CVE-2024-40898 HIGH 7.5 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
| CVE-2022-28330 MEDIUM 5.3 | http_server 2.0.64 · port 80 |
Every port that has answered a connection on this address, and when. A port is listed as open above only when a service was identified on it. Times are UTC.