Vulnerability Scan Result

IP address | 192.99.186.191 |
Country | CA ![]() |
AS number | AS16276 |
Net name | OVH SAS |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 5.3 |
53/tcp | domain | ISC BIND 9.8.2rc1 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
111/tcp | rpcbind | - 2-4 |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
993/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
995/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Bootstrap 4.4.1 | UI frameworks |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
jQuery 3.6.4 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery UI 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
MySQL | Databases |
Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
PHP | Programming languages |
Themeansar Newsup | WordPress themes |
WordPress 6.2.2 | CMS, Blogs |
MediaElement.js 4.2.17 | Video players |
YouTube | Video players |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
---|---|---|---|---|
6.5 | CVE-2023-38000 | Auth. Stored (contributor+) Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WordPress core 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.1.3, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7 and Gutenberg plugin <= 16.8.0 versions. | wordpress 6.2.2 | |
5.3 | CVE-2023-5561 | WordPress does not properly restrict which user fields are searchable via the REST API, allowing unauthenticated attackers to discern the email addresses of users who have published public posts on an affected website via an Oracle style attack | wordpress 6.2.2 | |
4.3 | CVE-2023-39999 | Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in WordPress from 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.13, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7, from 5.8 through 5.8.7, from 5.7 through 5.7.9, from 5.6 through 5.6.11, from 5.5 through 5.5.12, from 5.4 through 5.4.13, from 5.3 through 5.3.15, from 5.2 through 5.2.18, from 5.1 through 5.1.16, from 5.0 through 5.0.19, from 4.9 through 4.9.23, from 4.8 through 4.8.22, from 4.7 through 4.7.26, from 4.6 through 4.6.26, from 4.5 through 4.5.29, from 4.4 through 4.4.30, from 4.3 through 4.3.31, from 4.2 through 4.2.35, from 4.1 through 4.1.38. | wordpress 6.2.2 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system.
Recommendation
In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.
Classification
CWE | CWE-1026 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | 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
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | 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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | GET | Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 |
|
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application is serving mixed content. This occurs when initial HTML is loaded over a secure HTTPS connection, but other resources (such as images, videos, stylesheets, scripts) are loaded over an insecure HTTP connection. This is called mixed content because both HTTP and HTTPS content are being loaded to display the same page, and the initial request was secure over HTTPS.
Risk description
The risk is that the insecurely loaded resources (HTTP) on an otherwise secure page (HTTPS) can be intercepted or manipulated by attackers, potentially leading to eavesdropping or content tampering.
Recommendation
Ensure that all external resources the page references are loaded using HTTPS.
Classification
CWE | CWE-311 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | 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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | 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 | Different hostname found for a source file www.youtube.com |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the target application includes scripts from external domains. This may be problematic as such scripts have the same level of access as the application's own scripts, which means they can interact with application data and perform actions as the current user.
Risk description
The risk is that cross domain file inclusion can lead to a wide variety security breaches if the external scripts are malicious or become compromised.
Recommendation
You do not have any control over what is in that code. Ensure files on the site are loaded from only trusted sources.
Classification
CWE | CWE-829 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A8 - Software and Data Integrity Failures |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
CWE | CWE-693 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Bootstrap 4.4.1 | UI frameworks |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.0 | JavaScript libraries |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
jQuery 3.6.4 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery UI 1.13.2 | JavaScript libraries |
MySQL | Databases |
Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
PHP | Programming languages |
Themeansar Newsup | WordPress themes |
WordPress 6.2.2 | CMS, Blogs |
MediaElement.js 4.2.17 | Video players |
YouTube | Video players |
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://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | 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: stkip_kierahatt@yahoo.co.id |
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 |
Evidence
URL | Method | Summary |
---|---|---|
https://www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,POST,OPTIONS,HEAD` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
CWE | CWE-16 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
9.8 | CVE-2023-38408 | The PKCS#11 feature in ssh-agent in OpenSSH before 9.3p2 has an insufficiently trustworthy search path, leading to remote code execution if an agent is forwarded to an attacker-controlled system. (Code in /usr/lib is not necessarily safe for loading into ssh-agent.) NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2016-10009. | |
8.5 | CVE-2015-5600 | The kbdint_next_device function in auth2-chall.c in sshd in OpenSSH through 6.9 does not properly restrict the processing of keyboard-interactive devices within a single connection, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct brute-force attacks or cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a long and duplicative list in the ssh -oKbdInteractiveDevices option, as demonstrated by a modified client that provides a different password for each pam element on this list. | |
7.8 | CVE-2016-6515 | The auth_password function in auth-passwd.c in sshd in OpenSSH before 7.3 does not limit password lengths for password authentication, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crypt CPU consumption) via a long string. | |
7.5 | CVE-2010-4478 | OpenSSH 5.6 and earlier, when J-PAKE is enabled, does not properly validate the public parameters in the J-PAKE protocol, which allows remote attackers to bypass the need for knowledge of the shared secret, and successfully authenticate, by sending crafted values in each round of the protocol, a related issue to CVE-2010-4252. | |
7.5 | CVE-2014-1692 | The hash_buffer function in schnorr.c in OpenSSH through 6.4, when Makefile.inc is modified to enable the J-PAKE protocol, does not initialize certain data structures, which might allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption) or have unspecified other impact via vectors that trigger an error condition. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Openssh 5.3
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible SSH service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-05-23 15:26 EEST
Nmap scan report for www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id (192.99.186.191)
Host is up (0.098s latency).
rDNS record for 192.99.186.191: ip191.ip-192-99-186.net
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 5.3 (protocol 2.0)
| ssh-auth-methods:
| Supported authentication methods:
| publickey
| gssapi-keyex
| gssapi-with-mic
|_ password
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.92 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the SSH service with username/password authentication is publicly accessible. Network administrators often use remote administration protocols to control devices like switches, routers, and other essential systems. However, allowing these services to be accessible via the Internet can increase security risks, creating potential opportunities for attacks on the organization.
Risk description
Exposing this service online with username/password authentication can enable attackers to launch authentication attacks, like guessing login credentials, and potentially gaining unauthorized access. Vulnerabilities, such as unpatched software, protocol flaws, or backdoors could also be exploited. An example is the CVE-2024-3094 (XZ Utils Backdoor) vulnerability.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off SSH with username/password authentication access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the SSH service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, it is advisable to utilize SSH Public Key Authentication since it employs a key pair to verify the identity of a user or process.
Evidence
Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
6.5 | CVE-2023-38000 | Auth. Stored (contributor+) Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WordPress core 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.1.3, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7 and Gutenberg plugin <= 16.8.0 versions. | |
5.3 | CVE-2023-5561 | WordPress does not properly restrict which user fields are searchable via the REST API, allowing unauthenticated attackers to discern the email addresses of users who have published public posts on an affected website via an Oracle style attack | |
4.3 | CVE-2023-39999 | Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in WordPress from 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.13, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7, from 5.8 through 5.8.7, from 5.7 through 5.7.9, from 5.6 through 5.6.11, from 5.5 through 5.5.12, from 5.4 through 5.4.13, from 5.3 through 5.3.15, from 5.2 through 5.2.18, from 5.1 through 5.1.16, from 5.0 through 5.0.19, from 4.9 through 4.9.23, from 4.8 through 4.8.22, from 4.7 through 4.7.26, from 4.6 through 4.6.26, from 4.5 through 4.5.29, from 4.4 through 4.4.30, from 4.3 through 4.3.31, from 4.2 through 4.2.35, from 4.1 through 4.1.38. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 6.2.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
6.5 | CVE-2023-38000 | Auth. Stored (contributor+) Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WordPress core 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.1.3, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7 and Gutenberg plugin <= 16.8.0 versions. | |
5.3 | CVE-2023-5561 | WordPress does not properly restrict which user fields are searchable via the REST API, allowing unauthenticated attackers to discern the email addresses of users who have published public posts on an affected website via an Oracle style attack | |
4.3 | CVE-2023-39999 | Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in WordPress from 6.3 through 6.3.1, from 6.2 through 6.2.2, from 6.1 through 6.13, from 6.0 through 6.0.5, from 5.9 through 5.9.7, from 5.8 through 5.8.7, from 5.7 through 5.7.9, from 5.6 through 5.6.11, from 5.5 through 5.5.12, from 5.4 through 5.4.13, from 5.3 through 5.3.15, from 5.2 through 5.2.18, from 5.1 through 5.1.16, from 5.0 through 5.0.19, from 4.9 through 4.9.23, from 4.8 through 4.8.22, from 4.7 through 4.7.26, from 4.6 through 4.6.26, from 4.5 through 4.5.29, from 4.4 through 4.4.30, from 4.3 through 4.3.31, from 4.2 through 4.2.35, from 4.1 through 4.1.38. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 6.2.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-05-23 15:26 EEST
Nmap scan report for www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id (192.99.186.191)
Host is up (0.096s latency).
rDNS record for 192.99.186.191: ip191.ip-192-99-186.net
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
995/tcp open ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d
|_pop3-capabilities: TOP USER RESP-CODES SASL(PLAIN LOGIN) CAPA AUTH-RESP-CODE PIPELINING UIDL
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 7.57 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the Post Office Protocol (POP3) service is publicly accessible and doesn’t include STARTTLS capability. Email clients use the Post Office Protocol (POP) to download emails for user accounts. Some POP servers are initially set up to operate over an unsecured protocol. When email clients download email content through this plaintext protocol, it can pose a substantial risk to the organization's network, especially depending on which user account is set to receive the emails.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks, thereby gaining access to sensitive user credentials and the contents of emails. Given that POP3 operates via a plaintext protocol, the entirety of the data exchanged between the client and server is left unencrypted. This critical information could then be leveraged in further attacks on the organization's network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off POP3 access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the POP3 service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, activating STARTTLS capability (switching the connection to a secure communication) or utilizing Secure POP3 (POP3S) is recommended, as this protocol employs encryption.
Evidence
We managed to detect that WordPress has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 6.2.2 End-of-life date: 2023-08-08 Latest version for the cycle: 6.2.6 This release cycle (6.2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2023-03-29 and its latest release date was 2024-06-24.
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 |
---|---|---|---|
www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id | A | IPv4 address | 192.99.186.191 |
www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id | NS | Name server | ns2.idwebhost.com |
www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id | NS | Name server | ns1.idwebhost.com |
www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id | MX | Mail server | 0 lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id |
www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.idwebhost.com. emailserver.jcamp.net. 2025052206 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:192.99.186.191\010 ~all" |
www.lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id | CNAME | Canonical name | lsp.stkipkieraha.ac.id |
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 5.1 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
WordPress 6.2.2 | CMS, Blogs |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
YouTube | Video players |
Bootstrap 6.2.2 | UI frameworks |
Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
Themeansar Newsup | WordPress themes |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery | 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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
WordPress 6.2.2 | CMS, Blogs |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
YouTube | Video players |
Bootstrap 6.2.2 | UI frameworks |
Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
Themeansar Newsup | WordPress themes |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
Open Graph | 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.