Vulnerability Scan Result

| Title: | Punto de venta - Ubiipagos |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 54.87.57.175 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
| ip_address | 52.206.91.175 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
| ip_address | 52.70.0.36 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS14618 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| DataTables 1.10.22 | JavaScript libraries |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.252 | Analytics |
| Firebase | Databases, Development |
| Bootstrap 4.5.2 | UI frameworks |
| Axios | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 2.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| parcel | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.2.27 | Programming languages |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
| SWC | Miscellaneous |
| Aivo | Live chat, CRM |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Datadog | RUM, Analytics |
| Lodash 4.17.20 | JavaScript libraries |
| Zepto | JavaScript libraries |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-28458 | 7.3 | 0.01228 | 0.78765 | All versions of package datatables.net are vulnerable to Prototype Pollution due to an incomplete fix for https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-DATATABLESNET-598806. |
| CVE-2021-23445 | 3.1 | 0.00327 | 0.5511 | This affects the package datatables.net before 1.11.3. If an array is passed to the HTML escape entities function it would not have its contents escaped. |
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Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions.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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-23337 | 7.2 | 0.00741 | 0.72457 | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function. |
| CVE-2020-28500 | 5.3 | 0.00245 | 0.47476 | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions. |
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
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.com/ | ubiipagos_session | Set-Cookie: ubiipagos_session=eyJpdiI6ImVWU1NGT0dpYzBQMkdyRkxORStTRkE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiQTc2NmlzOXpNemZ3OURON0FjM29vOGxxaFB4TCs1NU1ZN29hWVd2RERsV2YweC9IK0ExeUZEMUxZakwrUGJVZ3JWNXZZYitUN2FGUzUxcmFvZmM2V1BhRmJvdTAxT2RlOXRmblg3aDAyNnlIOWNsdnBoUTFuZnpaZmJmNFVKQWEiLCJtYWMiOiIwNTFmZjU5NTgyNmRjNGI5YmY0NzMyMTA5N2M1ZjdjNjJkMDVhOTUwMGE2OWU1YzFhZGQwMDU1OTczNGYwNDQyIiwidGFnIjoiIn0%3D |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.com/ | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.
Risk description
The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.
Recommendation
The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We found the robots.txt on the target server. This file instructs web crawlers what URLs and endpoints of the web application they can visit and crawl. Website administrators often misuse this file while attempting to hide some web pages from the users.
Risk description
There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.
Recommendation
We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website (ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.com/pagos_ubii/ | 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 Cookies: XSRF-TOKEN=eyJpdiI6Imw5UTR5Z2JlWTRSdmY3aktWTGFmTnc9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiSjF0cXRpMy9IaWI2eFJ5QlZ6ZUQwczRBTGViSitzWlh4ckMzNkllVnE1R0NzeVdCc0hXYTVmRnM... | Response has an internal server error status code: 500 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's website does not properly handle or incorrectly manages exceptional conditions like Internal Server Errors. These errors can reveal sensitive information through their error messages. For instance, an error message could inadvertently disclose system paths or private application details.
Risk description
The risk exists that attackers could utilize information revealed in Internal Server Error messages to mount more targeted and effective attacks. Detailed error messages could, for example, expose a path traversal weakness (CWE-22) or other exploitable system vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience, and nobody else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic and not being cryptic enough. They should not necessarily reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Such detailed information can be used to refine the original attack to increase the chances of success. If errors must be tracked in some detail, capture them in log messages - but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Avoid recording highly sensitive information such as passwords in any form. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a username is valid or not.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-209 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.com/ | Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).
Recommendation
The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.com/ | Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.
Recommendation
We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| DataTables 1.10.22 | JavaScript libraries |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.252 | Analytics |
| Firebase | Databases, Development |
| Bootstrap 4.5.2 | UI frameworks |
| Axios | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 2.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| parcel | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.2.27 | Programming languages |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Select2 | JavaScript libraries |
| SWC | Miscellaneous |
| Aivo | Live chat, CRM |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Datadog | RUM, Analytics |
| Lodash 4.17.20 | JavaScript libraries |
| Zepto | 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.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.com/pagos_ubii/index | 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 Cookies: XSRF-TOKEN=eyJpdiI6IkFSSUgvT0g3bUJkZ25uTG9SK0tvblE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiQ253N0NHYlNBOHB2N2VEcmlLaGdmajBxYTk2QXNKYjVHb2lOaGk5RVY1czVTeHFwZUJwWFpwZzZ... | The following form allows file upload: ` |
Vulnerability description
We found the file upload functionality in the web application. While this is not a security issue by itself, it may represent a first step in an attack involving storing data on the target server.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker might use the file upload functionality for path traversal, persistent XSS, transmission of malware or denial of service, if such vulnerabilities are present.
Recommendation
Use a server-generated filename, inspect the content of uploaded files, enforce a whitelist of non-executable file types and a size limit, and reject attempts to upload archive formats such as ZIP.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-434 |
| 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.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.ubiipagos.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: atencionubii@ubiipagos.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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns-1436.awsdns-51.org, ns-1641.awsdns-13.co.uk, ns-57.awsdns-07.com, ns-703.awsdns-23.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
We found insecure EDNS configuration on the following nameservers: ns-1436.awsdns-51.org ns-1436.awsdns-51.org:
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.ubiipagos.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.206.91.175 |
| www.ubiipagos.com | A | IPv4 address | 54.87.57.175 |
| www.ubiipagos.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.70.0.36 |
| www.ubiipagos.com | NS | Name server | ns-1436.awsdns-51.org |
| www.ubiipagos.com | NS | Name server | ns-1641.awsdns-13.co.uk |
| www.ubiipagos.com | NS | Name server | ns-57.awsdns-07.com |
| www.ubiipagos.com | NS | Name server | ns-703.awsdns-23.net |
| www.ubiipagos.com | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| www.ubiipagos.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| www.ubiipagos.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| www.ubiipagos.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| www.ubiipagos.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| www.ubiipagos.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-1641.awsdns-13.co.uk. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400 |
| www.ubiipagos.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:ne16.com include:spf1.ubiipagos.com include:spf2.ubiipagos.com ~all" |
| www.ubiipagos.com | CNAME | Canonical name | ubiipagos.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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Firebase | Databases, Development |
| PHP 8.2.27 | Programming languages |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.252 | Analytics |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| cdnjs | 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.
