Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | elevatemedspa - Online Booking |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 3.211.186.204 |
| Country | US  |
| AS number | AS14618 |
| Net name | Amazon Inc |
| IP address | 52.2.96.94 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS14618 |
| Net name | Amazon Inc |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| New Relic | RUM |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://booking.elevatetpa.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-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| New Relic | RUM |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| 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
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://booking.elevatetpa.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 | Email Address: u003etampa@elevatetpa.com tampa@elevatetpa.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 | A6: Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A4: Insecure Design |
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
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| booking.elevatetpa.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.2.96.94 |
| booking.elevatetpa.com | A | IPv4 address | 3.211.186.204 |
| booking.elevatetpa.com | CNAME | Canonical name | customhosts2.zenoti.com |
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 2.6.32 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
| Microsoft ASP.NET | Web frameworks |
| Bootstrap 5.2.3 | UI frameworks |
| Angular | JavaScript frameworks |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Zone.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| TikTok Pixel | Analytics |
| New Relic | RUM |
| Microsoft Clarity 0.8.9 | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.6.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.203 | Analytics |
| core-js 3.40.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome 4.7.0 | Font scripts |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Popper 2.11.6 | Miscellaneous |
| jQuery UI 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
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.