Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | SecureTrust Portal |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 3.221.54.169 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
| ip_address | 54.210.58.68 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
| ip_address | 107.20.136.151 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Angular | JavaScript frameworks |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| HSTS | Security |
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
| Zendesk | Documentation, Issue trackers, Live chat |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://managepci.com/services/webapi/v2/emailEvent/clicked/iZsiS7QXlzYE0ndzBSDPoaX6EH5vphgC4BayF2Zr7tCJEtvE7H1hmbnehkVxOggxERGgtCl2H1SRnaeqDD58SA/SHgrdfBbxiyouyRjkS8rG-iUYlBgLtpnsu3mY4lCn6o | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Angular | JavaScript frameworks |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| HSTS | Security |
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
| Zendesk | Documentation, Issue trackers, Live chat |
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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://managepci.com/services/webapi/v2/emailEvent/clicked/iZsiS7QXlzYE0ndzBSDPoaX6EH5vphgC4BayF2Zr7tCJEtvE7H1hmbnehkVxOggxERGgtCl2H1SRnaeqDD58SA/SHgrdfBbxiyouyRjkS8rG-iUYlBgLtpnsu3mY4lCn6o | 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: notifications@managepci.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 |
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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCqhqF7Pt1Poj9ouTLnceysYR/BqTkTsZrJzGFPUOll/1G9+u5Vcvqx9JOh5GKeaR0Jcgretvqb/M9UDOkOJrwIlWdixgZmstcpa/IPCGSwidEgtV2URcdWh7Kyd7GqvgI/XKd4S80t0+OmeStowb0INnUCxdkMQQqzl6diaeNqbQIDAQAB" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.
Risk description
Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| zendesk1 | rsa | 912 | "v=DKIM1;t=s;n=core;k=rsa;p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA9IqdLrO3Zr2/56MHt8oQVCQorP0Bl2Fz9sM2tFBnJCdB/HogQmuudEg2xAovCN2PYpw44UijIvPuBoT9vxiv6ZCBJTLJXa82r6ke5rE4tbe9" "NKFIrVIb9S306cJDrnKFMDb8p0dU/Su0+eUR5gVAOtCuz2L8HAzs5edvsEvD/Fb4ny1RLNSEPZkIQLfGhVxQeWANm3+1Jwb/OBVXV9k0nKpWrpgqcmO7NzroJirp014RQY7rGi60JLUubc6XhvoFQBQrtOAdVlZC5wvfS1bgpq5kQpdP7cajIqWCeqxPTeo0ZUpey2ZcaygEsZz0Z3Gs5wDzyuqd7/ADpr2jNF7ozwIDAQAB" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM key length is under 1024-bit. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) key length is under 1024-bit, it is considered weak by modern cryptographic standards. Shorter key lengths, such as 512 or 768 bits, are vulnerable to brute-force attacks, where an attacker could potentially forge a valid DKIM signature for a domain. This undermines the entire purpose of DKIM, which is to authenticate email messages and prevent email spoofing by verifying that the message headers have not been tampered with. A DKIM key under 1024 bits significantly reduces the difficulty for attackers to break the signature.
Risk description
The primary risk of using a DKIM key with fewer than 1024 bits is that it weakens the domain's email authentication security, making it more susceptible to brute-force attacks. If an attacker successfully forges a DKIM signature, they can impersonate legitimate senders and send fraudulent or phishing emails that appear authentic to the recipient. This can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and an increased risk of targeted attacks, as recipients are more likely to trust emails that pass DKIM verification.
Recommendation
We recommend using a DKIM key with a length of at least 1024 bits. Ideally, 2048-bit keys should be used, as they provide a higher level of security and are more resistant to brute-force attacks. Organizations should regularly audit their DKIM configurations and rotate cryptographic keys periodically to maintain security. In addition, any DKIM keys that are less than 1024 bits should be immediately replaced with stronger keys to prevent exploitation.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.managepci.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:6fd7926ed8d1761@rep.dmarcanalyzer.com; ruf=mailto:6fd7926ed8d1761@for.dmarcanalyzer.com; fo=1;" |
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.managepci.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:6fd7926ed8d1761@rep.dmarcanalyzer.com; ruf=mailto:6fd7926ed8d1761@for.dmarcanalyzer.com; fo=1;" |
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: ns-1349.awsdns-40.org, ns-1810.awsdns-34.co.uk, ns-58.awsdns-07.com, ns-956.awsdns-55.net
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| managepci.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx include:mail.zendesk.com -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Zendesk | Documentation, Issue trackers, Live chat |
| HSTS | Security |
| Amazon S3 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Linux 2.6.32 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCqhqF7Pt1Poj9ouTLnceysYR/BqTkTsZrJzGFPUOll/1G9+u5Vcvqx9JOh5GKeaR0Jcgretvqb/M9UDOkOJrwIlWdixgZmstcpa/IPCGSwidEgtV2URcdWh7Kyd7GqvgI/XKd4S80t0+OmeStowb0INnUCxdkMQQqzl6diaeNqbQIDAQAB" | |
| zendesk1 | rsa | 912 | "v=DKIM1;t=s;n=core;k=rsa;p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA9IqdLrO3Zr2/56MHt8oQVCQorP0Bl2Fz9sM2tFBnJCdB/HogQmuudEg2xAovCN2PYpw44UijIvPuBoT9vxiv6ZCBJTLJXa82r6ke5rE4tbe9" "NKFIrVIb9S306cJDrnKFMDb8p0dU/Su0+eUR5gVAOtCuz2L8HAzs5edvsEvD/Fb4ny1RLNSEPZkIQLfGhVxQeWANm3+1Jwb/OBVXV9k0nKpWrpgqcmO7NzroJirp014RQY7rGi60JLUubc6XhvoFQBQrtOAdVlZC5wvfS1bgpq5kQpdP7cajIqWCeqxPTeo0ZUpey2ZcaygEsZz0Z3Gs5wDzyuqd7/ADpr2jNF7ozwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| managepci.com | A | IPv4 address | 3.221.54.169 |
| managepci.com | A | IPv4 address | 54.210.58.68 |
| managepci.com | A | IPv4 address | 107.20.136.151 |
| managepci.com | NS | Name server | ns-1349.awsdns-40.org |
| managepci.com | NS | Name server | ns-1810.awsdns-34.co.uk |
| managepci.com | NS | Name server | ns-58.awsdns-07.com |
| managepci.com | NS | Name server | ns-956.awsdns-55.net |
| managepci.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mx3.sysnet.ie |
| managepci.com | MX | Mail server | 20 mx4.sysnet.ie |
| managepci.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-1810.awsdns-34.co.uk. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400 |
| managepci.com | TXT | Text record | "55ecbfbf-6459-419c-a0d5-612fc2557bb1" |
| managepci.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=5kJSsc44T22a8_w-Hcrjfe2Jyol3W9stw1Kg3xdqPBk" |
| managepci.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=tJMuCPHhzY4L6pUUrHXqlkvfevZqFgoQgtlpIqw53SI" |
| managepci.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx include:mail.zendesk.com -all" |
| _dmarc.managepci.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:6fd7926ed8d1761@rep.dmarcanalyzer.com; ruf=mailto:6fd7926ed8d1761@for.dmarcanalyzer.com; fo=1;" |
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.