Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Home - Consafe |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 129.232.151.99 |
| country | ZA  |
| network_name | Xneelo Ltd |
| asn | AS37153 |
21/tcp | ftp | ProFTPD - |
25/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
53/tcp | domain | - - |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
465/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
587/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
993/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
995/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
8443/tcp | https | sw-cp-server - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| All in One SEO Pack 4.8.9 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.3 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Bootstrap 3.3.5 | UI frameworks |
| LazySizes | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.4.14 | Programming languages |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Vimeo | Video players |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WooCommerce 10.3.3 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| MonsterInsights 9.9.0 | WordPress plugins, Analytics |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-6484 | 6.4 | 0.00049 | 0.15167 | 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. |
| CVE-2019-8331 | 6.1 | 0.02292 | 0.84161 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.1 and 4.3.x before 4.3.1, XSS is possible in the tooltip or popover data-template attribute. |
| CVE-2018-20677 | 6.1 | 0.11866 | 0.93427 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.0, XSS is possible in the affix configuration target property. |
| CVE-2018-20676 | 6.1 | 0.06144 | 0.9039 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.0, XSS is possible in the tooltip data-viewport attribute. |
| CVE-2018-14042 | 6.1 | 0.017 | 0.81659 | In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the data-container property of tooltip. |
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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://consafe.co.za/ | Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.
Recommendation
We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| All in One SEO Pack 4.8.9 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.3 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Bootstrap 3.3.5 | UI frameworks |
| LazySizes | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.4.14 | Programming languages |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Vimeo | Video players |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WooCommerce 10.3.3 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| MonsterInsights 9.9.0 | WordPress plugins, Analytics |
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 found the robots.txt on the target server. This file instructs web crawlers what URLs and endpoints of the web application they can visit and crawl. Website administrators often misuse this file while attempting to hide some web pages from the users.
Risk description
There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.
Recommendation
We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website (ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://consafe.co.za/ | 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://consafe.co.za/ | 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://consafe.co.za/ | 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 |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the server is missing the security.txt file, which is considered a good practice for web security. It provides a standardized way for security researchers and the public to report security vulnerabilities or concerns by outlining the preferred method of contact and reporting procedures.
Risk description
There is no particular risk in not having a security.txt file for your server. However, this file is important because it offers a designated channel for reporting vulnerabilities and security issues.
Recommendation
We recommend you to implement the security.txt file according to the standard, in order to allow researchers or users report any security issues they find, improving the defensive mechanisms of your server.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://consafe.co.za/wp-json/wp/v2/pages | 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 | Possible API endpoint found at |
Vulnerability description
We found API endpoints while crawling the given web application.
Risk description
These endpoints may represent an attack surface for malicious actors interested in API-specific vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Use the API Scanner to perform a more thorough vulnerability check for these endpoints, if an API specification is present.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://consafe.co.za/ | 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 this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service. Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-11-01 01:32 EET Nmap scan report for consafe.co.za (129.232.151.99) Host is up. rDNS record for 129.232.151.99: neo.noiz.co.za
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 995/tcp filtered pop3s
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 3.03 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 found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns2.host-h.net, ns2.dns-h.com, ns1.host-h.net, ns1.dns-h.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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| consafe.co.za | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=CPpp2JlCij597JlGQuntPPa1oP6aUq1kk5YNRK3Z440" |
| consafe.co.za | TXT | Text record | "ppe-c7e035cd3822f8348b33851c8cf7e8ec0144047d" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| consafe.co.za | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~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
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp ProFTPD
Vulnerability description
We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| consafe.co.za | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf-eu.ppe-hosted.com ~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
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service. Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-11-01 01:32 EET Nmap scan report for consafe.co.za (129.232.151.99) Host is up. rDNS record for 129.232.151.99: neo.noiz.co.za
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 110/tcp filtered pop3
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 3.14 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| consafe.co.za | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all" |
| consafe.co.za | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf-eu.ppe-hosted.com ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target has more than one configured DNS SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record. SPF is designed to prevent email spoofing by specifying which mail servers are allowed to send email on behalf of a domain. According to RFC 7208, a domain must have only one SPF record. Multiple SPF records can cause validation issues, leading to failed email authentication checks. This could impact email deliverability, and legitimate emails may be rejected or marked as spam.
Risk description
Having multiple SPF records poses a significant risk to email security and deliverability. When a receiving email server encounters more than one SPF record, it might fail to properly validate the SPF configuration, leading to the rejection of legitimate emails or their classification as spam. This can negatively affect business operations by disrupting email communication with customers, partners, or internal stakeholders. Furthermore, failure to comply with SPF best practices can make the domain more vulnerable to email spoofing attacks, which could damage the organization's reputation and lead to phishing attempts using the domain name.
Recommendation
We recommend removing any redundant or conflicting SPF records and ensuring that only one SPF record is present. The multiple records should be merged into a single SPF entry that includes all necessary authorized mail servers. For example, if two SPF records exist, they can be combined into one as follows:\nv=spf1 include:spf1.example.com include:spf2.example.com -all\nAfterward, verify that the single SPF record covers all the intended mail servers. Test the SPF configuration using email testing tools to confirm that it works correctly and that email deliverability is not negatively impacted.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.27.1.1 | Web servers |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| consafe.co.za | A | IPv4 address | 129.232.151.99 |
| consafe.co.za | NS | Name server | ns2.host-h.net |
| consafe.co.za | NS | Name server | ns2.dns-h.com |
| consafe.co.za | NS | Name server | ns1.host-h.net |
| consafe.co.za | NS | Name server | ns1.dns-h.com |
| consafe.co.za | MX | Mail server | 5 ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| consafe.co.za | MX | Mail server | 10 ALT4.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| consafe.co.za | MX | Mail server | 5 ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| consafe.co.za | MX | Mail server | 100 ALT3.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| consafe.co.za | MX | Mail server | 1 ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM |
| consafe.co.za | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.host-h.net. postmaster.consafe.co.za. 20251016 86400 1800 3600000 86400 |
| consafe.co.za | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=CPpp2JlCij597JlGQuntPPa1oP6aUq1kk5YNRK3Z440" |
| consafe.co.za | TXT | Text record | "ppe-c7e035cd3822f8348b33851c8cf7e8ec0144047d" |
| consafe.co.za | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all" |
| consafe.co.za | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf-eu.ppe-hosted.com ~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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.27.1.1 | Web servers |
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 |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.27.1.1 | Web servers |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1332 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAtsnUJqK3boAy1tU77WVffFxVcd4DdcEOX/yKl7/oEDC/uWhpYbCDIp+nk/mz37JWSGZb0I+DQUxu5pBRNXv+iXtCbLyDh1onWmh+0VBUMo+zFoKS9h354mkTT3YOv6YjI6Q6qL2EPAFTgHmNWGQrjcg+STd7EAZtn/0HH58CKe8SjVEhL2" "nWgVzOV7Rs+iALV7fpFwtaw80mI3nk3jgk/xquWXo2LOCm052/1TdcQ+DBRvtNVshj+VfWSp9WBy94aGnQObWY2X8EF04/xdLcSza189B7LikIy6izhWP9sR4A+h+NuuwSQMIBTm/DXgUK+AITqNnMhaBB3YKOwe1HlwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 5.0 | 93% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection