HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack as cookie appears to contain a session token, which may increase the risk associated with this issue. You should review the contents of the cookie to determine its function.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is affected by clickjacking vulnerability Cross-Frame Scripting is an attack technique where an attacker loads a vulnerable application in an iFrame on his malicious site. The attacker can then launch a Clickjacking attack, which may lead to Phishing, Cross-Site Request Forgery, sensitive information leakage and more.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack as the application implements an HTML5 cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) policy for this request that allows access from any domain (-Wildcard).

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable since the application does not have a validation for HOST header and accepts arbitrary hosts when requested in http protocol. When an application doesn’t adequately validate or sanitize this header, it can lead to several security risks, including Host header poisoning, server misconfigurations.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since It was found that a malicious actor can use brute-force techniques to either guess or confirm valid users in the system. Use renumeration is when a malicious actor can use brute-force techniques to either guess or confirm valid users in a system

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since HTTP OPTIONS method is enabled on this web server. The OPTIONS method provides a list of the methods that are supported by the Web server which allows an attacker to narrow and intensify their efforts.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the application returns detailed error messages that leak information about the processing on the server. An attacker may use the contents of error messages to help launch another ,more focused attack.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the application does not have an appropriate caching policy specifying the extent to which the page and its form fields should be cached. If sensitive information in application responses is stored in the local cache, then this may be retrieved by other users who have access to the same computer at a future time.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attack since the Application is vulnerable to Lucky 13. that makes the SS LLUCKY13 possible affects the TLS1.1and 1.2 and DTLS1.0 or 1.2 implementations . It also affects previous versions such as SSL3.0 and TLS1.0. This can also be considered a type of man-in-the-middle attack.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to attacks since the server software version used by the application is revealed by the web server. Displaying version information of software could allow an attacker to determine which vulnerabilities are present in the software, particularly if an outdated software version is in use with published vulnerabilities.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to email flooding as the application does not have a proper mail limitation mechanism at Forget Password functionality. The actor could b e a human or an automated process such as a virus or bot. This could be used to cause a denial of service, compromise program logic or other consequences.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is vulnerable to brute force attacks since application doesn’t have captcha implemented. It can lead to various security issues like brute force , automated attacks & account enumeration

HCL Aftermarket EPC is affected by Sensitive Information in GET method & in URL which allows application to pass sensitive data via URL parameters during normal usage. Data passed in this manner can be exposed because it may end up stored in unintended locations, including server logs, local browser history and proxy logs.

HCL Aftermarket EPC is affected by Business Logic Vulnerability using which a non valid user of the application can obtain passwords from the server and redirect them to their own email address by manipulating the server's response. The application includes checks in the initial requests to verify the validity of the provided UserId, but similar validation is not applied to Email requests when sending passwords to user emails.