Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Cluep |
| Description: | We're a mobile ad platform that targets people based on what they are sharing, how they are feeling and where they have been. |
| ip_address | 18.211.3.200 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
| ip_address | 54.88.41.235 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| AWS Certificate Manager | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| styled-components 5.3.6 | JavaScript frameworks, Development |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Lodash 4.17.21 | JavaScript libraries |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-13465 | 6.9 | 0.00028 | 0.07846 | Lodash versions 4.0.0 through 4.17.22 are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. An attacker can pass crafted paths which cause Lodash to delete methods from global prototypes. The issue permits deletion of properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. This issue is patched on 4.17.23 |
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Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions.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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| AWS Certificate Manager | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| styled-components 5.3.6 | JavaScript frameworks, Development |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Lodash 4.17.21 | JavaScript libraries |
| HSTS | Security |
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://cluep.com/ | 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 | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://cluep.com/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,HEAD` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-16 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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
We found insecure EDNS configuration on the following nameservers: ns-1136.awsdns-14.org, ns-1851.awsdns-39.co.uk ns-1136.awsdns-14.org:
ns-1851.awsdns-39.co.uk:
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not properly implement EDNS (Extension Mechanisms for DNS). EDNS allows larger DNS packets and supports modern features such as DNSSEC.
Risk description
The risk exists because improper or missing EDNS support can lead to truncated responses, degraded DNS performance, and compatibility issues with DNSSEC. This exposes users to risks such as incomplete DNS resolution and failed DNSSEC validation.
Recommendation
We recommend ensuring the proper implementation of EDNS on the DNS server. Update the DNS server software to support EDNS fully, including modern features like DNSSEC. Regularly test DNS configurations to ensure compliance and performance.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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.cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluep.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:_spf.mlsend.com ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns-1136.awsdns-14.org, ns-1851.awsdns-39.co.uk, ns-418.awsdns-52.com, ns-693.awsdns-22.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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| HSTS | Security |
| AWS Certificate Manager | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | 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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCCxs44UPKDqPkY+2A/1tJrr0K9qcCpk99tKbWAtZ59CgBXFnGsM/mhCGcvKaoaj3sjH2Cn0ynW4ec6XY+tf3CqB1/ZXEhIAS1CBazpqHSNuHjAnJEsj2wZlTSPmjmyKqmJKKvAd5cJyPiM4DvstdTwd1FLRKhlFXzztSRep+MOWQIDAQAB" | |
| s1 | rsa | 1446 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAnkiljg9IUC5UJlF8cB+qKqFuLdB8i4C0ME/qg6Ywghr84YSYtoKAWidm//Tg715qA79xpzXN4jypPGI0hoqcapd2/I1zqSF3r6CstzcPvqFZU8EHFcxVUaVaXBDpExqw1wBMj30INpXKbJwv4hYhA92G979iWrKg6mTtw+IQOFcd0d50co/w5W5jxz3pKNzDNpvU2" "Me5ZS2gorTY1ifTT2cRI35HY9JCWya/tFxrighiUr/cA/iiRW1y5heUC5yZO0GMj5f9fwfhE8uf1hCUCO4PLZEXy1wwo2895ZbvM89gK6WCrHIjfe+YAd2J1fwd8WQqniXht5j3KQmj/ERxowIDAQAB" |
| s2 | rsa | 1446 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsPHwCGVvbPEuo8fSAwINh1Ej6u5vqC8You47q8Rl3I3PArovQ1+2cEwr7WYBwqnnY3tUGERzMpNsVYqzPZYXWwkt8lC4Kny47AbNu8fxT1hJyT0/5vkECZHqNQuGGBVO1K0S1LUGhVLMARCRBJQMTgahGQpH+4iNzOexZ0Km33STGjOP21DhH2PFQLXYwf6MnI5BY" "o5OfdgjRlRW41Aqzs4smoARtBmj5NmrjYurwXwT/l73bZWh7Pb2i9VtS7m/7P3C3Ab8gPzfIIg7hyzp3RmweHlvkcIqijcnxD554JeNMBgFvLZ75OABNXkkS/zXEH3G5LLu7rWkPEAKVFCURwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 2.6.32 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluep.com | A | IPv4 address | 54.88.41.235 |
| cluep.com | A | IPv4 address | 18.211.3.200 |
| cluep.com | NS | Name server | ns-1136.awsdns-14.org |
| cluep.com | NS | Name server | ns-1851.awsdns-39.co.uk |
| cluep.com | NS | Name server | ns-418.awsdns-52.com |
| cluep.com | NS | Name server | ns-693.awsdns-22.net |
| cluep.com | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| cluep.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| cluep.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| cluep.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| cluep.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| cluep.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-1851.awsdns-39.co.uk. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400 |
| cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "MS=ms92886685" |
| cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "atlassian-domain-verification=xun7lhWvhEHgaEg//8mHnJiXxZnISZVjVrs54wcuhhqnI/72Gw3/ZlwF/A8VEZcI" |
| cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=qNn6H0rmZZoloL7bqmFPDtE5szoa2tnTt3GI1d9b-Mg" |
| cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=qRBuV4mNrFBJARcvvKqTf_VdAdfTD5q82AP7hU0EkC8" |
| cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "hubspot-developer-verification=NmJkZmMxMzQtOWQyZC00OTQ0LTllZmYtODNjZWMwMWQxMTIx" |
| cluep.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:_spf.mlsend.com ~all" |
| _dmarc.cluep.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
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.