Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Mili Express |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 192.99.101.41 |
| Country | CA  |
| AS number | AS16276 |
| Net name | OVH SAS |
21/tcp | ftp | vsftpd 3.0.2 |
53/tcp | domain | - - |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
3306/tcp | mysql | MySQL 5.7.33-log |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Font Awesome 5.15.4 | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap 4.4.1 | UI frameworks |
| Axios | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.5.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP 8.1.25 | Programming languages |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Lodash 4.17.15 | JavaScript libraries |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-4577 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, when using Apache and PHP-CGI on Windows, if the system is set up to use certain code pages, Windows may use "Best-Fit" behavior to replace characters in command line given to Win32 API functions. PHP CGI module may misinterpret those characters as PHP options, which may allow a malicious user to pass options to PHP binary being run, and thus reveal the source code of scripts, run arbitrary PHP code on the server, etc. | php 8.1.25 | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-11236 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.31, 8.2.* before 8.2.26, 8.3.* before 8.3.14, uncontrolled long string inputs to ldap_escape() function on 32-bit systems can cause an integer overflow, resulting in an out-of-bounds write. | php 8.1.25 | |
| 8.8 | CVE-2024-5585 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, the fix for CVE-2024-1874 does not work if the command name includes trailing spaces. Original issue: when using proc_open() command with array syntax, due to insufficient escaping, if the arguments of the executed command are controlled by a malicious user, the user can supply arguments that would execute arbitrary commands in Windows shell. | php 8.1.25 | |
| 6.5 | CVE-2021-23337 | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function. | lodash 4.17.15 | |
| 5.9 | CVE-2024-2408 | The openssl_private_decrypt function in PHP, when using PKCS1 padding (OPENSSL_PKCS1_PADDING, which is the default), is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack unless it is used with an OpenSSL version that includes the changes from this pull request: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13817 (rsa_pkcs1_implicit_rejection). These changes are part of OpenSSL 3.2 and have also been backported to stable versions of various Linux distributions, as well as to the PHP builds provided for Windows since the previous release. All distributors and builders should ensure that this version is used to prevent PHP from being vulnerable. PHP Windows builds for the versions 8.1.29, 8.2.20 and 8.3.8 and above include OpenSSL patches that fix the vulnerability. | php 8.1.25 | |
| 5.8 | CVE-2020-8203 | Prototype pollution attack when using _.zipObjectDeep in lodash before 4.17.20. | lodash 4.17.15 | |
| 5.3 | CVE-2024-5458 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. | php 8.1.25 | |
| 5 | CVE-2020-28500 | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions. | lodash 4.17.15 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system.
Recommendation
In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://tracking.miliexpress.com/tracking | superroute_session | Set-Cookie: superroute_session=eyJpdiI6InJVOXRseHBIeWprQ0F2QVJ0Nkwxc1E9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoieXByclpLdXVoeVBPMFkwZFpubVc5bzAvOEI0UzJ2RXFuUGhiOHFFemRTaC9GdVlmZlUxclJQQ0NNaCtLcFFqdXpmb1FzUXhHK1Q0TWJsSTQvbnJ3aXhJUDZBcVdKbDB0M0hubE1qZk83RE13UEIxM3RYRW84VmhzTVdSZGIvNGUiLCJtYWMiOiIwZTQ1MDcwNTFmZGVlNmZkNTEyNzYwZTFjNjhlOGE0NjZjZjI2OTJlNGRhYjJiOWEyOGJkMWIzMjk5YmVhZjg0IiwidGFnIjoiIn0%3D |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://tracking.miliexpress.com/tracking | Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.
Recommendation
We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://tracking.miliexpress.com/tracking | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://tracking.miliexpress.com/tracking | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.
Risk description
The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.
Recommendation
The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://tracking.miliexpress.com/tracking | Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).
Recommendation
The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Font Awesome 5.15.4 | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap 4.4.1 | UI frameworks |
| Axios | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.5.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP 8.1.25 | Programming languages |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Lodash 4.17.15 | 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.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
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).
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the server is missing the security.txt file, which is considered a good practice for web security. It provides a standardized way for security researchers and the public to report security vulnerabilities or concerns by outlining the preferred method of contact and reporting procedures.
Risk description
There is no particular risk in not having a security.txt file for your server. However, this file is important because it offers a designated channel for reporting vulnerabilities and security issues.
Recommendation
We recommend you to implement the security.txt file according to the standard, in order to allow researchers or users report any security issues they find, improving the defensive mechanisms of your server.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://tracking.miliexpress.com/tracking | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,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-2024-4577 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, when using Apache and PHP-CGI on Windows, if the system is set up to use certain code pages, Windows may use "Best-Fit" behavior to replace characters in command line given to Win32 API functions. PHP CGI module may misinterpret those characters as PHP options, which may allow a malicious user to pass options to PHP binary being run, and thus reveal the source code of scripts, run arbitrary PHP code on the server, etc. | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-11236 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.31, 8.2.* before 8.2.26, 8.3.* before 8.3.14, uncontrolled long string inputs to ldap_escape() function on 32-bit systems can cause an integer overflow, resulting in an out-of-bounds write. | |
| 8.8 | CVE-2024-5585 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, the fix for CVE-2024-1874 does not work if the command name includes trailing spaces. Original issue: when using proc_open() command with array syntax, due to insufficient escaping, if the arguments of the executed command are controlled by a malicious user, the user can supply arguments that would execute arbitrary commands in Windows shell. | |
| 5.9 | CVE-2024-2408 | The openssl_private_decrypt function in PHP, when using PKCS1 padding (OPENSSL_PKCS1_PADDING, which is the default), is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack unless it is used with an OpenSSL version that includes the changes from this pull request: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13817 (rsa_pkcs1_implicit_rejection). These changes are part of OpenSSL 3.2 and have also been backported to stable versions of various Linux distributions, as well as to the PHP builds provided for Windows since the previous release. All distributors and builders should ensure that this version is used to prevent PHP from being vulnerable. PHP Windows builds for the versions 8.1.29, 8.2.20 and 8.3.8 and above include OpenSSL patches that fix the vulnerability. | |
| 5.3 | CVE-2024-5458 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 8.1.25
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.;
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible MySQL service.
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
3306/tcp open mysql MySQL 5.7.33-logVulnerability description
We identified that the MySQL service is publicly accessible. MySQL serves as a common database for numerous web applications and services for data storage, making it a potential prime target for determined attackers.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker exploits this issue by launching a password-based attack on the MySQL service. Furthermore, they could exploit zero-day vulnerabilities to obtain remote access to the MySQL database server, thereby gaining complete control over its operating system and associated services. Such an attack could lead to the exposure of confidential or sensitive information.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off public Internet access to MySQL and opting for a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that enforces two-factor authentication (2FA). Avoid enabling direct user authentication to the MySQL service via the Internet, as this could enable attackers to engage in password-guessing and potentially initiate attacks leading to complete control. However, if the MySQL service is required to be directly accessible over the Internet, we recommend reconfiguring it to be accessible only from known IP addresses.
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.8 | CVE-2021-3618 | ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer. | |
| 5 | CVE-2015-1419 | Unspecified vulnerability in vsftpd 3.0.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to bypass access restrictions via unknown vectors, related to deny_file parsing. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Vsftpd 3.0.2
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.;
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-2021-23337 | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function. | |
| 5.8 | CVE-2020-8203 | Prototype pollution attack when using _.zipObjectDeep in lodash before 4.17.20. | |
| 5 | CVE-2020-28500 | Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDoS) via the toNumber, trim and trimEnd functions. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Lodash 4.17.15
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.;
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service.
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
21/tcp open ftp vsftpd 3.0.2Vulnerability 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
We managed to detect that MySQL has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.7.33-log End-of-life date: 2023-10-31 Latest version for the cycle: 5.7.44 This release cycle (5.7) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2015-10-09 and its latest release date was 2023-09-20. The support ended on 2020-10-31.
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
We managed to detect that Bootstrap has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 4.4.1 End-of-life date: 2023-01-01 Latest version for the cycle: 4.6.2 This release cycle (4) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2018-01-18 and its latest release date was 2022-07-19. The support ended on 2021-11-01.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracking.miliexpress.com | A | IPv4 address | 192.99.101.41 |
Risk description
An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.
Recommendation
We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.
Evidence
| Operating System |
|---|
| Linux 5.4 |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP 8.1.25 | Programming languages |
| Bootstrap 4.4.1 | UI frameworks |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Lodash 4.17.15 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.5.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Axios | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Font Awesome 5.15.4 | Font scripts |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Popper | Miscellaneous |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.