Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Campaign Tool Rocket Mountain |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 144.76.63.75 |
| Country | DE  |
| AS number | AS24940 |
| Net name | Hetzner Online GMBH |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 6.7p1 Debian 5+deb8u8 |
53/tcp | domain | NLnet Labs NSD 4.1.0 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.10 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.10 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| DataTables | JavaScript libraries |
| Debian | Operating systems |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| FullCalendar 3.9.0 | Widgets |
| Bootstrap 4.0.0 | UI frameworks |
| core-js 2.4.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| Moment.js 2.14.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| SweetAlert2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.8 | CVE-2023-25690 | Some mod_proxy configurations on Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.0 through 2.4.55 allow a HTTP Request Smuggling attack. Configurations are affected when mod_proxy is enabled along with some form of RewriteRule or ProxyPassMatch in which a non-specific pattern matches some portion of the user-supplied request-target (URL) data and is then re-inserted into the proxied request-target using variable substitution. For example, something like: RewriteEngine on RewriteRule "^/here/(.*)" "http://example.com:8080/elsewhere?$1"; [P] ProxyPassReverse /here/ http://example.com:8080/ Request splitting/smuggling could result in bypass of access controls in the proxy server, proxying unintended URLs to existing origin servers, and cache poisoning. Users are recommended to update to at least version 2.4.56 of Apache HTTP Server. | http_server 2.4.10 | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-38474 | Substitution encoding issue in mod_rewrite in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows attacker to execute scripts in directories permitted by the configuration but not directly reachable by any URL or source disclosure of scripts meant to only to be executed as CGI. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. Some RewriteRules that capture and substitute unsafely will now fail unless rewrite flag "UnsafeAllow3F" is specified. | http_server 2.4.10 | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-38476 | Vulnerability in core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier are vulnerably to information disclosure, SSRF or local script execution via backend applications whose response headers are malicious or exploitable. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. | http_server 2.4.10 | |
| 9 | CVE-2022-36760 | Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request Smuggling') vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server allows an attacker to smuggle requests to the AJP server it forwards requests to. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server Apache HTTP Server 2.4 version 2.4.54 and prior versions. | http_server 2.4.10 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-3167 | In Apache httpd 2.2.x before 2.2.33 and 2.4.x before 2.4.26, use of the ap_get_basic_auth_pw() by third-party modules outside of the authentication phase may lead to authentication requirements being bypassed. | http_server 2.4.10 | |
| 5 | CVE-2017-18214 | The moment module before 2.19.3 for Node.js is prone to a regular expression denial of service via a crafted date string, a different vulnerability than CVE-2016-4055. | moment 2.14.1 | |
| 5 | CVE-2022-24785 | Moment.js is a JavaScript date library for parsing, validating, manipulating, and formatting dates. A path traversal vulnerability impacts npm (server) users of Moment.js between versions 1.0.1 and 2.29.1, especially if a user-provided locale string is directly used to switch moment locale. This problem is patched in 2.29.2, and the patch can be applied to all affected versions. As a workaround, sanitize the user-provided locale name before passing it to Moment.js. | moment 2.14.1 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2018-14040 | In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the collapse data-parent attribute. | bootstrap 4.0.0 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2018-14041 | In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the data-target property of scrollspy. | bootstrap 4.0.0 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2018-14042 | In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the data-container property of tooltip. | bootstrap 4.0.0 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2016-10735 | In Bootstrap 3.x before 3.4.0 and 4.x-beta before 4.0.0-beta.2, XSS is possible in the data-target attribute, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-14041. | bootstrap 4.0.0 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | jquery 3.2.1 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 3.2.1 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 3.2.1 |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://couponwinner.ch/ | PHPSESSID | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=sa6nghq0mkiggci8p3vuh79l81 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1004 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://couponwinner.ch/ | PHPSESSID | Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=sa6nghq0mkiggci8p3vuh79l81 |
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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://couponwinner.ch/assets/ | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://couponwinner.ch/assets/css/ | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://couponwinner.ch/assets/demo | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://couponwinner.ch/assets/img | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://couponwinner.ch/assets/js | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://couponwinner.ch/assets/js/core | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://couponwinner.ch/assets/js/plugins | Found output resembling directory listing. |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's web server is affected by a Directory Listing vulnerability in its URL structure. Directory listing is enabled due to misconfigured server settings, allowing attackers to view all files and subdirectories on the server.
Risk description
The risk is that it's often the case that sensitive files are "hidden" among public files in that location and attackers can use this vulnerability to access them.
Recommendation
We recommend reconfiguring the web server in order to deny directory listing. Furthermore, you should verify that there are no sensitive files at the mentioned URLs.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-548 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A1 - Broken Access Control |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application's web server presents an SSL/TLS certificate that is not trusted by web browsers. This issue typically arises when the server uses a self-signed certificate, a certificate from an untrusted authority, or a certificate that has expired or is invalid for other reasons. The lack of a trusted certificate makes it challenging for users to verify the authenticity of the server, undermining the security of the SSL/TLS connection.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could easily mount a man-in-the-middle attack in order to sniff the SSL communication by presenting the user a fake SSL certificate.
Recommendation
We recommend you to configure a trusted SSL certificate for the web server. Examples of how to configure SSL for various servers for Apache and Nginx are referenced.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://couponwinner.ch/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://couponwinner.ch/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://couponwinner.ch/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://couponwinner.ch/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| DataTables | JavaScript libraries |
| Debian | Operating systems |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| FullCalendar 3.9.0 | Widgets |
| Bootstrap 4.0.0 | UI frameworks |
| core-js 2.4.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| Moment.js 2.14.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| SweetAlert2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
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.
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
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVE-2016-6173 | NSD before 4.1.11 allows remote DNS master servers to cause a denial of service (/tmp disk consumption and slave server crash) via a zone transfer with unlimited data. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nlnet Labs Nsd 4.1.0
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.;
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.8 | CVE-2023-25690 | Some mod_proxy configurations on Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.0 through 2.4.55 allow a HTTP Request Smuggling attack. Configurations are affected when mod_proxy is enabled along with some form of RewriteRule or ProxyPassMatch in which a non-specific pattern matches some portion of the user-supplied request-target (URL) data and is then re-inserted into the proxied request-target using variable substitution. For example, something like: RewriteEngine on RewriteRule "^/here/(.*)" "http://example.com:8080/elsewhere?$1"; [P] ProxyPassReverse /here/ http://example.com:8080/ Request splitting/smuggling could result in bypass of access controls in the proxy server, proxying unintended URLs to existing origin servers, and cache poisoning. Users are recommended to update to at least version 2.4.56 of Apache HTTP Server. | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-38474 | Substitution encoding issue in mod_rewrite in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows attacker to execute scripts in directories permitted by the configuration but not directly reachable by any URL or source disclosure of scripts meant to only to be executed as CGI. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. Some RewriteRules that capture and substitute unsafely will now fail unless rewrite flag "UnsafeAllow3F" is specified. | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-38476 | Vulnerability in core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier are vulnerably to information disclosure, SSRF or local script execution via backend applications whose response headers are malicious or exploitable. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. | |
| 9 | CVE-2022-36760 | Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request Smuggling') vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server allows an attacker to smuggle requests to the AJP server it forwards requests to. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server Apache HTTP Server 2.4 version 2.4.54 and prior versions. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-3167 | In Apache httpd 2.2.x before 2.2.33 and 2.4.x before 2.4.26, use of the ap_get_basic_auth_pw() by third-party modules outside of the authentication phase may lead to authentication requirements being bypassed. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10
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.;
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.8 | CVE-2023-25690 | Some mod_proxy configurations on Apache HTTP Server versions 2.4.0 through 2.4.55 allow a HTTP Request Smuggling attack. Configurations are affected when mod_proxy is enabled along with some form of RewriteRule or ProxyPassMatch in which a non-specific pattern matches some portion of the user-supplied request-target (URL) data and is then re-inserted into the proxied request-target using variable substitution. For example, something like: RewriteEngine on RewriteRule "^/here/(.*)" "http://example.com:8080/elsewhere?$1"; [P] ProxyPassReverse /here/ http://example.com:8080/ Request splitting/smuggling could result in bypass of access controls in the proxy server, proxying unintended URLs to existing origin servers, and cache poisoning. Users are recommended to update to at least version 2.4.56 of Apache HTTP Server. | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-38474 | Substitution encoding issue in mod_rewrite in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier allows attacker to execute scripts in directories permitted by the configuration but not directly reachable by any URL or source disclosure of scripts meant to only to be executed as CGI. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. Some RewriteRules that capture and substitute unsafely will now fail unless rewrite flag "UnsafeAllow3F" is specified. | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-38476 | Vulnerability in core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 and earlier are vulnerably to information disclosure, SSRF or local script execution via backend applications whose response headers are malicious or exploitable. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.60, which fixes this issue. | |
| 9 | CVE-2022-36760 | Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request Smuggling') vulnerability in mod_proxy_ajp of Apache HTTP Server allows an attacker to smuggle requests to the AJP server it forwards requests to. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server Apache HTTP Server 2.4 version 2.4.54 and prior versions. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-3167 | In Apache httpd 2.2.x before 2.2.33 and 2.4.x before 2.4.26, use of the ap_get_basic_auth_pw() by third-party modules outside of the authentication phase may lead to authentication requirements being bypassed. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10
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.;
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 | CVE-2022-31160 | jQuery UI is a curated set of user interface interactions, effects, widgets, and themes built on top of jQuery. Versions prior to 1.13.2 are potentially vulnerable to cross-site scripting. Initializing a checkboxradio widget on an input enclosed within a label makes that parent label contents considered as the input label. Calling `.checkboxradio( "refresh" )` on such a widget and the initial HTML contained encoded HTML entities will make them erroneously get decoded. This can lead to potentially executing JavaScript code. The bug has been patched in jQuery UI 1.13.2. To remediate the issue, someone who can change the initial HTML can wrap all the non-input contents of the `label` in a `span`. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2016-7103 | Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in jQuery UI before 1.12.0 might allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the closeText parameter of the dialog function. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2021-41182 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `altField` option of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `altField` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `altField` option from untrusted sources. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2021-41183 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of various `*Text` options of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. The values passed to various `*Text` options are now always treated as pure text, not HTML. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `*Text` options from untrusted sources. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2021-41184 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `of` option of the `.position()` util from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `of` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `of` option from untrusted sources. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery UI 1.11.4
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.;
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.3 | CVE-2015-9251 | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 2.1.4
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.;
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.couponwinner.ch | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject;" |
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.couponwinner.ch | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject;" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.couponwinner.ch | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject;" |
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 jQuery has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 2.1.4 Latest version for the cycle: 2.2.4 This release cycle (2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2013-04-18 and its latest release date was 2016-05-20.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| couponwinner.ch | A | IPv4 address | 144.76.63.75 |
| couponwinner.ch | NS | Name server | ns11.infomaniak.ch |
| couponwinner.ch | NS | Name server | ns12.infomaniak.ch |
| couponwinner.ch | SOA | Start of Authority | ns11.infomaniak.ch. hostmaster.infomaniak.ch. 2024113011 10800 3600 605800 3600 |
| couponwinner.ch | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
| _dmarc.couponwinner.ch | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject;" |
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 |
|---|
| Linux 3.10 - 4.11 |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| couponwinner.ch | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Debian | Operating systems |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Handlebars | JavaScript frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 | Web servers |
| jQuery UI 1.11.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 2.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| FancyBox 2.1.5 | JavaScript libraries |
| Basic | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| TypeScript | Programming languages |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| Debian | Operating systems |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.10 | Web servers |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| SweetAlert2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Moment.js | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| FullCalendar | Widgets |
| DataTables | JavaScript libraries |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Popper | 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.