Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Alternative Vs Conventional Medicine - Which Can You Select |
| Description: | There are numerous ways to about stopping to light up. Everyone should choose a method which is best suited for them. My way was rather bold and direct - I ended cold turkey after smoking a pack a day for 5 years. Was it painful - yes, could it have been worth it - Yup. But that isn't the option... |
| ip_address | 172.67.75.40 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 104.26.2.16 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 104.26.3.16 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | cloudflare - |
2082/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8443/tcp | http | cloudflare - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap 4.3.1 | UI frameworks |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-6531 | 6.4 | 0.00072 | 0.22588 | A vulnerability has been identified in Bootstrap that exposes users to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The issue is present in the carousel component, where the data-slide and data-slide-to attributes can be exploited through the href attribute of an <a> tag due to inadequate sanitization. This vulnerability could potentially enable attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript within the victim's browser. |
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Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions.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://rentry.co/t38tn39p/export-page | csrftoken | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: csrftoken=VerKsIdTD9ryC6HtRro22xwquUlzd8eAg7LfTkdrVMIptyO31TyQsmXYjWtxxK8d |
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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://rentry.co/t38tn39p | 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
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap 4.3.1 | UI frameworks |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| 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.
Evidence
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: nicole.ns.cloudflare.com, piotr.ns.cloudflare.com
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.rentry.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:ee2dde63353246a28c32de18a18f12ab@dmarc-reports.cloudflare.net,mailto:support@rentry.co" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| rentry.co | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:zoho.eu include:mailgun.org ~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.rentry.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:ee2dde63353246a28c32de18a18f12ab@dmarc-reports.cloudflare.net,mailto:support@rentry.co" |
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.rentry.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:ee2dde63353246a28c32de18a18f12ab@dmarc-reports.cloudflare.net,mailto:support@rentry.co" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 384 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCz6LgzHj9/p4pop5aEXD3yLPdO +p9xsvitHjuwe7lKQ6dyzncouMnxsA7Xfsw6qztowwh+jjRDui66mMhrEdgZI87n qarAKYsiKonOUKX907wHnESFFNG2BXSnGqaMfVb8B6ilG+Bx3Wz0idFegHNJ5MNy njM0vRj/rtn1d4oIkQIDAQAB" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM key length is under 1024-bit. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) key length is under 1024-bit, it is considered weak by modern cryptographic standards. Shorter key lengths, such as 512 or 768 bits, are vulnerable to brute-force attacks, where an attacker could potentially forge a valid DKIM signature for a domain. This undermines the entire purpose of DKIM, which is to authenticate email messages and prevent email spoofing by verifying that the message headers have not been tampered with. A DKIM key under 1024 bits significantly reduces the difficulty for attackers to break the signature.
Risk description
The primary risk of using a DKIM key with fewer than 1024 bits is that it weakens the domain's email authentication security, making it more susceptible to brute-force attacks. If an attacker successfully forges a DKIM signature, they can impersonate legitimate senders and send fraudulent or phishing emails that appear authentic to the recipient. This can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and an increased risk of targeted attacks, as recipients are more likely to trust emails that pass DKIM verification.
Recommendation
We recommend using a DKIM key with a length of at least 1024 bits. Ideally, 2048-bit keys should be used, as they provide a higher level of security and are more resistant to brute-force attacks. Organizations should regularly audit their DKIM configurations and rotate cryptographic keys periodically to maintain security. In addition, any DKIM keys that are less than 1024 bits should be immediately replaced with stronger keys to prevent exploitation.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 384 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCz6LgzHj9/p4pop5aEXD3yLPdO +p9xsvitHjuwe7lKQ6dyzncouMnxsA7Xfsw6qztowwh+jjRDui66mMhrEdgZI87n qarAKYsiKonOUKX907wHnESFFNG2BXSnGqaMfVb8B6ilG+Bx3Wz0idFegHNJ5MNy njM0vRj/rtn1d4oIkQIDAQAB" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.
Risk description
Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rentry.co | A | IPv4 address | 104.26.2.16 |
| rentry.co | A | IPv4 address | 172.67.75.40 |
| rentry.co | A | IPv4 address | 104.26.3.16 |
| rentry.co | NS | Name server | nicole.ns.cloudflare.com |
| rentry.co | NS | Name server | piotr.ns.cloudflare.com |
| rentry.co | MX | Mail server | 10 mx.zoho.eu |
| rentry.co | MX | Mail server | 20 mx2.zoho.eu |
| rentry.co | MX | Mail server | 50 mx3.zoho.eu |
| rentry.co | SOA | Start of Authority | nicole.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2394929180 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| rentry.co | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:20::681a:310 |
| rentry.co | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:20::681a:210 |
| rentry.co | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:20::ac43:4b28 |
| rentry.co | TXT | Text record | "facebook-domain-verification=uivcun35vvy8v0mrrvrd4r4kcpu7vv" |
| rentry.co | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=RrdIOUbx30LZwAy9-SJDTbuklrPalG7m9t6Kk4hVR9w" |
| rentry.co | TXT | Text record | "projectarachnid-verification=ELIORE5P2XBZSB62JV6JFL6EZINQWEIW" |
| rentry.co | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:zoho.eu include:mailgun.org ~all " |
| _dmarc.rentry.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:ee2dde63353246a28c32de18a18f12ab@dmarc-reports.cloudflare.net,mailto:support@rentry.co" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | 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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | 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.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 384 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCz6LgzHj9/p4pop5aEXD3yLPdO +p9xsvitHjuwe7lKQ6dyzncouMnxsA7Xfsw6qztowwh+jjRDui66mMhrEdgZI87n qarAKYsiKonOUKX907wHnESFFNG2BXSnGqaMfVb8B6ilG+Bx3Wz0idFegHNJ5MNy njM0vRj/rtn1d4oIkQIDAQAB" |
| s1 | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC7yzkyaOuxIHw33stb8n59S5OgWrTbiduqWTR/8xxuMPzlJpUrPpXSIa3ZEbPw9Q2oedoYhcleth8fSqmfU+S9JVtgRkx2sjcR+X5ss9XIwXtiUtRWk19d+ebtiV/YWkzlKNffhyboKly6ninIaZKsvMzP/kqFyIQbbST9yeGyrQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Python | Programming languages |
| Django | Web frameworks |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | 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.