Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Bot Verification |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 149.28.47.113 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | The Constant Company, LLC |
| asn | AS20473 |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 8.9p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu0.13 |
53/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
80/tcp | http | LiteSpeed - |
179/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
443/tcp | https | LiteSpeed - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Altcha | Security |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://maidstonedental.com.au/ | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://maidstonedental.com.au/ | Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.
Recommendation
We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://maidstonedental.com.au/ | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.
Risk description
The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.
Recommendation
The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://maidstonedental.com.au/ | Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).
Recommendation
The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Altcha | Security |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| jsDelivr | 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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible SSH service. Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2026-02-01 10:48 EET Nmap scan report for maidstonedental.com.au (45.32.183.112) Host is up (0.0014s latency). rDNS record for 45.32.183.112: 45.32.183.112.vultrusercontent.com
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 22/tcp open ssh OpenSSH 8.9p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu0.13 (Ubuntu Linux; protocol 2.0) | ssh-auth-methods: | Supported authentication methods: | publickey |_ password Service Info: OS: Linux; CPE: cpe:/o:linux:linux_kernel
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 1.36 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
We didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.
Vulnerability description
We found that the target server has no DMARC policy configured. A missing DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy means that the domain is not enforcing any DMARC policies to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks. Without DMARC, even if SPF (Sender Policy Framework) or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are configured, there is no mechanism to tell receiving email servers how to handle messages that fail authentication. This leaves the domain vulnerable to abuse, such as email spoofing and impersonation.
Risk description
Without a DMARC policy, your domain is highly vulnerable to email spoofing, allowing attackers to impersonate your brand and send fraudulent emails that appear legitimate. This can lead to phishing attacks targeting your customers, employees, or partners, potentially resulting in stolen credentials, financial loss, or unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Additionally, repeated spoofing attempts can severely damage your brand's reputation, as recipients may lose trust in communications from your domain, associating your brand with malicious activity. The absence of DMARC also prevents you from monitoring and mitigating email-based attacks, leaving your domain exposed to ongoing abuse.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing a DMARC policy for your domain. Start by configuring a DMARC record with a policy of p=none, which will allow you to monitor email flows without impacting legitimate emails. This initial setup helps identify how emails from your domain are being processed by recipient servers. Once you’ve verified that legitimate emails are passing SPF and DKIM checks, you can gradually enforce stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject to protect against spoofing and phishing attacks. Additionally, include rua and ruf email addresses in the DMARC record to receive aggregate and forensic reports. These reports will provide valuable insights into authentication failures and help you detect any spoofing attempts.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAvdt5/yJUPsrRzbc4B8T7/d3DJyXnnVLJjI/Jmxq2A0qVIFYjPk9iPf/e9ED1/raY8Lt8bKCfTsuGS5jA2OjgM5CZHJhSBBDz1TQqokV+FuWrkcm9opR0lJ5RFjvLsak7S+WQDdD/mNpUulHyeYJ9W1ur4tpMOyTs5Ge7p3pQxxRacPiQYg9gtgXp4NcOW1sFq" "g3FHJ3r7RCslfR6MChfVZGpc+RHIPzKUsHdZYhUTqRhDs2RrbFFGLkZwehJGF+bSOdlGGMk0P9EKyzQJYn+9+6n7tO5/TWZrzUe6SiUbB27DQi+Dy5c1ItCQw/gObpKJeDyJo/VvpXmM8Et7iZ3owIDAQAB;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| maidstonedental.com.au | A | IPv4 address | 45.32.183.112 |
| maidstonedental.com.au | NS | Name server | kevin.quicns.com |
| maidstonedental.com.au | NS | Name server | jon.quicns.cloud |
| maidstonedental.com.au | MX | Mail server | 10 mx01.mailcluster.com.au |
| maidstonedental.com.au | MX | Mail server | 20 mx02.mailcluster.com.au |
| maidstonedental.com.au | SOA | Start of Authority | kevin.quicns.com. dns.quicns.com. 1765274170 14400 2400 2419000 3600 |
| maidstonedental.com.au | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:110.173.135.228 +a +mx +ip4:116.90.52.7 +include:spf.mailcluster.com.au -all" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAvdt5/yJUPsrRzbc4B8T7/d3DJyXnnVLJjI/Jmxq2A0qVIFYjPk9iPf/e9ED1/raY8Lt8bKCfTsuGS5jA2OjgM5CZHJhSBBDz1TQqokV+FuWrkcm9opR0lJ5RFjvLsak7S+WQDdD/mNpUulHyeYJ9W1ur4tpMOyTs5Ge7p3pQxxRacPiQYg9gtgXp4NcOW1sFq" "g3FHJ3r7RCslfR6MChfVZGpc+RHIPzKUsHdZYhUTqRhDs2RrbFFGLkZwehJGF+bSOdlGGMk0P9EKyzQJYn+9+6n7tO5/TWZrzUe6SiUbB27DQi+Dy5c1ItCQw/gObpKJeDyJo/VvpXmM8Et7iZ3owIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| OpenWrt Kamikaze 7.09 (Linux 2.6.22) | 98% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| maidstonedental.com.au | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:110.173.135.228 +a +mx +ip4:116.90.52.7 +include:spf.mailcluster.com.au -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Svelte | JavaScript frameworks |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Altcha | Security |
| HTTP/3 | 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.