Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | JW Player |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 44.209.231.57 |
| Country | US  |
| AS number | AS14618 |
| Net name | Amazon Inc |
| IP address | 18.210.43.130 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS14618 |
| Net name | Amazon Inc |
| IP address | 52.73.181.14 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS14618 |
| Net name | Amazon Inc |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Nginx 1.23.2 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Preact | JavaScript libraries |
| Zuora | Payment processors |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-44487 | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. | nginx 1.23.2 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
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.
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-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://benningtonpotters.com/ | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Nginx 1.23.2 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Preact | JavaScript libraries |
| Zuora | Payment processors |
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
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| http://benningtonpotters.com/ | 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 |
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 | A6: Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A4: Insecure Design |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-44487 | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nginx 1.23.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; 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
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-44487 | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nginx 1.23.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; 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
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.benningtonpotters.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;" |
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.benningtonpotters.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.benningtonpotters.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;" |
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 managed to detect that Nginx has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.23.2 End-of-life date: 2023-05-23 Latest version for the cycle: 1.23.4 This release cycle (1.23) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2022-06-21 and its latest release date was 2023-03-28.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| benningtonpotters.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.73.181.14 |
| benningtonpotters.com | A | IPv4 address | 18.210.43.130 |
| benningtonpotters.com | A | IPv4 address | 44.209.231.57 |
| benningtonpotters.com | NS | Name server | ns2.dnsmadeeasy.com |
| benningtonpotters.com | NS | Name server | ns1.dnsmadeeasy.com |
| benningtonpotters.com | NS | Name server | ns4.dnsmadeeasy.com |
| benningtonpotters.com | NS | Name server | ns3.dnsmadeeasy.com |
| benningtonpotters.com | NS | Name server | ns0.dnsmadeeasy.com |
| benningtonpotters.com | MX | Mail server | 20 mx2-us1.ppe-hosted.com |
| benningtonpotters.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com |
| benningtonpotters.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns0.dnsmadeeasy.com. dns.dnsmadeeasy.com. 2008010184 43200 3600 1209600 180 |
| benningtonpotters.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:50.241.116.165 include:spf.protection.outlook.com a:dispatch-us.ppe-hosted.com include:sendgrid.net -all" |
| benningtonpotters.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "sectigo.com" |
| benningtonpotters.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "letsencrypt.org" |
| _dmarc.benningtonpotters.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email;" |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 3.2 | 89% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| benningtonpotters.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:50.241.116.165 include:spf.protection.outlook.com a:dispatch-us.ppe-hosted.com include:sendgrid.net -all" |
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| s1 | rsa | 1446 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAw4n2cOFm+gD8/1exI4/TFPicbV3FBeqfYpSbQEq8g7QMa1jUs0o2MD5JOkOfyw2+wVjNUc+P5P+FaCSXgiqFdRWYi/l6AsA4jTrSJUNJgVMxtZQrCYjcNu4GPcCo+2o2R1p6b/p4d7mEbQQZFYA7tlFK1jlL+r7YnXf96aWPi42Do0Ys4LkYz00r1gv2q7bPARDUl" "feKgAmhfK1E6JpkrUUXOSPV0ssd2f1arTTch/oLB6WMeLlSrlLEoouunpCnP62rTqWJ/fDz9jvVY26nR5Kl2/tte35HMea5sydzULIMBmR46Xmg5q3YaiNGdFujT0+dbfpFkPOwkV/Kwbk8+wIDAQAB" |
| s2 | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQD1AfiA24gcw5ZBUQMUeyRgfKI4yZdEY5EghPRC86lvMYP8dk78lodJXo91p3ghH4xU6estrRQcEdyaVRYerSolpGBIu3QV8n2xH3msAJg5+HjwKBAMi2Xp6fd+U2Wzkr6XnSziSGSGai56oK9lL/FWYz9naFypnt8+D6HZE191nQIDAQAB" |
| selector1 | rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCVdUySMZqCWI46O/O3ipjGYNm2K9dc38VXP0bKir3D77a6C13EEn0lsmWZKgvaKABOCo+1IbEv8+tGGRna4a93FRI0mJl5oOofTSmMYulMiiSwe/aVhFhr+NYrw2ePxf8YxBYkCQ0cGcq13ke2j8vuBBcrqvwD+0AiXpNV3fg0DwIDAQAB; n=1024,1453912442,1" "469637242" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx 1.23.2 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Zuora | Payment processors |
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 |
|---|---|
| Nginx 1.23.2 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Zuora | Payment processors |
| AWS Certificate Manager | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
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.