Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://seawolfprivateers.org/

Scanned target: https://seawolfprivateers.org/

Submitted: May 01, 2026 from SL

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	Pirates - Seawolf Privateers
Description:	Nonprofit 501c3 charity supporting the foster children here in our community. We are an entertainment group that engages with the children as pirates and mermaids to connect with them in this fantasy realm.

IP Information

ip_address	76.223.105.230
country	US
network_name	Amazon.com, Inc.
asn	AS16509

ip_address	13.248.243.5
country	US
network_name	Amazon.com, Inc.
asn	AS16509

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	DPS/2.0.0+sha-76278be -
443/tcp	https	DPS/2.0.0+sha-76278be -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
React 17.0.2	JavaScript frameworks
RequireJS	JavaScript frameworks
PWA	Miscellaneous
GoDaddy Website Builder 8.0.0000	CMS
Lodash 4.17.15	JavaScript libraries
Re:amaze	Live chat
HSTS	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	Summary
CVE-2026-4800	8.1	0.00046	0.13861	Impact: The fix for CVE-2021-23337 (https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm) added validation for the variable option in _.template but did not apply the same validation to options.imports key names. Both paths flow into the same Function() constructor sink. When an application passes untrusted input as options.imports key names, an attacker can inject default-parameter expressions that execute arbitrary code at template compilation time. Additionally, _.template uses assignInWith to merge imports, which enumerates inherited properties via for..in. If Object.prototype has been polluted by any other vector, the polluted keys are copied into the imports object and passed to Function(). Patches: Users should upgrade to version 4.18.0. Workarounds: Do not pass untrusted input as key names in options.imports. Only use developer-controlled, static key names.
CVE-2020-8203	7.4	0.03306	0.8729	Prototype pollution attack when using _.zipObjectDeep in lodash before 4.17.20.
CVE-2021-23337	7.2	0.04314	0.88935	Lodash versions prior to 4.17.21 are vulnerable to Command Injection via the template function.
CVE-2025-13465	6.9	0.00029	0.08285	Lodash versions 4.0.0 through 4.17.22 are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. An attacker can pass crafted paths which cause Lodash to delete methods from global prototypes. The issue permits deletion of properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. This issue is patched on 4.17.23
CVE-2026-2950	6.5	0.00023	0.06424	Impact: Lodash versions 4.17.23 and earlier are vulnerable to prototype pollution in the _.unset and _.omit functions. The fix for (CVE-2025-13465: https://github.com/lodash/lodash/security/advisories/GHSA-xxjr-mmjv-4gpg) only guards against string key members, so an attacker can bypass the check by passing array-wrapped path segments. This allows deletion of properties from built-in prototypes such as Object.prototype, Number.prototype, and String.prototype. The issue permits deletion of prototype properties but does not allow overwriting their original behavior. Patches: This issue is patched in 4.18.0. Workarounds: None. Upgrade to the patched version.

Vulnerability description

Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed 'high' severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.

Recommendation

In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1035
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://seawolfprivateers.org/	dps_site_id	The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: dps_site_id=eu-central-1

Vulnerability description

We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.

Recommendation

Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1004
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://seawolfprivateers.org/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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

URL	Evidence
https://seawolfprivateers.org/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'. script-src: script-src directive is missing. object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'.

https://seawolfprivateers.org/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'. script-src: script-src directive is missing. object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.

Risk description

For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.

Recommendation

Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1021
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
React 17.0.2	JavaScript frameworks
RequireJS	JavaScript frameworks
PWA	Miscellaneous
GoDaddy Website Builder 8.0.0000	CMS
Lodash 4.17.15	JavaScript libraries
Re:amaze	Live chat
HSTS	Security

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.

Classification

CWE	CWE-200
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://seawolfprivateers.org/	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
https://seawolfprivateers.org/robots.txt

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	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://seawolfprivateers.org/	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: seawolfprivateersfl@gmail.com typesetit@att.net Cayti@SeawolfPrivateers.org filler@godaddy.com

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

Evidence

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://seawolfprivateers.org/	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	The following form allows file upload: ` Drop us a line! <label data-ux="InputFloatLabelLabel" for="input182932" data-typography="InputAlpha" class="x-el x-el-label c1-1 c1-2 c1-23 c1-1b c1-1c c1-5a c1-gg c1-gh c1-gi c1-gj c1-b c1-g... (truncated)

Vulnerability description

We found the file upload functionality in the web application. While this is not a security issue by itself, it may represent a first step in an attack involving storing data on the target server.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker might use the file upload functionality for path traversal, persistent XSS, transmission of malware or denial of service, if such vulnerabilities are present.

Recommendation

Use a server-generated filename, inspect the content of uploaded files, enforce a whitelist of non-executable file types and a size limit, and reject attempts to upload archive formats such as ZIP.

Classification

CWE	CWE-434
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://seawolfprivateers.org/.well-known/security.txt

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

CWE	CWE-1188
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://seawolfprivateers.org/krewe-members-only	<input type="text" role="textbox" aria-multiline="false" data-ux="Input" name="email" autocomplete="email" placeholder="Email" aria-label="Email" data-aid="MEMBERSHIP_SSO_LOGIN_EMAIL" value="" data-typography="InputAlpha" class="x-el x-el-input c1-1 c1-2 c1-8x c1-8y c1-4 c1-8z c1-90 c1-91 c1-92 c1-50 c1-51 c1-4y c1-93 c1-2z c1-5u c1-b c1-94 c1-25 c1-1j c1-95 c1-96 c1-97 c1-98 c1-99 c1-29 c1-2a c1-2b c1-2c"> <input type="password" role="textbox" aria-multiline="false" data-ux="Input" name="password" autocomplete="current-password" placeholder="Password" aria-label="Password" data-aid="MEMBERSHIP_SSO_LOGIN_PASSWORD" value="" data-typography="InputAlpha" class="x-el x-el-input c1-1 c1-2 c1-8x c1-8y c1-4 c1-8z c1-90 c1-91 c1-92 c1-50 c1-51 c1-4y c1-93 c1-2z c1-5u c1-b c1-94 c1-25 c1-1j c1-95 c1-96 c1-97 c1-98 c1-99 c1-29 c1-2a c1-2b c1-2c"> <button data-ux-btn="primary" data-ux="ButtonPrimary" color="PRIMARY" fill="GHOST" shape="SQUARE" decoration="NONE" shadow="NONE" type="submit" data-aid="MEMBERSHIP_SSO_SUBMIT" data-typography="ButtonAlpha" class="x-el x-el-button c1-4o c1-22 c1-7f c1-y c1-5u c1-6c c1-15 c1-16 c1-1h c1-x c1-1c c1-1b c1-t c1-13 c1-4 c1-4j c1-6d c1-1t c1-1v c1-6e c1-2z c1-6f c1-7y c1-6g c1-6h c1-6i c1-5t c1-6j c1-b c1-4u c1-6k c1-25 c1-6l c1-6m c1-6n c1-6o c1-29 c1-2a c1-2b c1-2c" data-tccl="ux2.MEMBERSHIP.ssoLogin.Form.Default.Button.Primary.15290.click,click">Sign in... (truncated)

https://seawolfprivateers.org/krewe-members-only

<input type="text" role="textbox" aria-multiline="false" data-ux="Input" name="email" autocomplete="email" placeholder="Email" aria-label="Email" data-aid="MEMBERSHIP_SSO_LOGIN_EMAIL" value="" data-typography="InputAlpha" class="x-el x-el-input c1-1 c1-2 c1-8x c1-8y c1-4 c1-8z c1-90 c1-91 c1-92 c1-50 c1-51 c1-4y c1-93 c1-2z c1-5u c1-b c1-94 c1-25 c1-1j c1-95 c1-96 c1-97 c1-98 c1-99 c1-29 c1-2a c1-2b c1-2c"> <input type="password" role="textbox" aria-multiline="false" data-ux="Input" name="password" autocomplete="current-password" placeholder="Password" aria-label="Password" data-aid="MEMBERSHIP_SSO_LOGIN_PASSWORD" value="" data-typography="InputAlpha" class="x-el x-el-input c1-1 c1-2 c1-8x c1-8y c1-4 c1-8z c1-90 c1-91 c1-92 c1-50 c1-51 c1-4y c1-93 c1-2z c1-5u c1-b c1-94 c1-25 c1-1j c1-95 c1-96 c1-97 c1-98 c1-99 c1-29 c1-2a c1-2b c1-2c"> <button data-ux-btn="primary" data-ux="ButtonPrimary" color="PRIMARY" fill="GHOST" shape="SQUARE" decoration="NONE" shadow="NONE" type="submit" data-aid="MEMBERSHIP_SSO_SUBMIT" data-typography="ButtonAlpha" class="x-el x-el-button c1-4o c1-22 c1-7f c1-y c1-5u c1-6c c1-15 c1-16 c1-1h c1-x c1-1c c1-1b c1-t c1-13 c1-4 c1-4j c1-6d c1-1t c1-1v c1-6e c1-2z c1-6f c1-7y c1-6g c1-6h c1-6i c1-5t c1-6j c1-b c1-4u c1-6k c1-25 c1-6l c1-6m c1-6n c1-6o c1-29 c1-2a c1-2b c1-2c" data-tccl="ux2.MEMBERSHIP.ssoLogin.Form.Default.Button.Primary.15290.click,click">Sign in... (truncated)

Vulnerability description

We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.

Recommendation

Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.

Classification

CWE	CWE-287
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.seawolfprivateers.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.

Risk description

Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.seawolfprivateers.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.

Risk description

The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.seawolfprivateers.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.

Risk description

Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.

Recommendation

We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
seawolfprivateers.org	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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.seawolfprivateers.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.

Risk description

Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.

Recommendation

To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
seawolfprivateers.org	A	IPv4 address	76.223.105.230
seawolfprivateers.org	A	IPv4 address	13.248.243.5
seawolfprivateers.org	NS	Name server	ns23.domaincontrol.com
seawolfprivateers.org	NS	Name server	ns24.domaincontrol.com
seawolfprivateers.org	MX	Mail server	1 smtp.google.com
seawolfprivateers.org	SOA	Start of Authority	ns23.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2025100102 28800 7200 604800 600
seawolfprivateers.org	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
_dmarc.seawolfprivateers.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none;"

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
google	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA23JH4Nv390DN0aAqs0f5peZTfYku7yXvWtR5jtpqVuGdor7LclSSRVRh4pCQWoQuBTPzU10tpE454f+wuGk+9E++wh4oc6Co++J2on4w8jXPUJ3y03/1CjfpBXsXLa7ByMVJ+7LXuSY+lpWcEDvotygsRqXmor7nIhyH1cEwYMrHDNVKC0IcDC4TrjOfZMMzh" "BH7edBTomRzq/HGFlOELts7AVe4iHV9DkGOJffaGg99IkJKWZl5o4RbYKq7NNBHTuFpbUNdpSi4bn4zd602FzI9NQTL+kJPuHOqa3tp9J/neHoaBxKrxloM8wRWEwvBl2FlyJV1fdxGgiKsz12m7QIDAQAB"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
GoDaddy Website Builder	CMS
Amazon Web Services	PaaS
RequireJS	JavaScript frameworks
HSTS	Security
Re:amaze	Live chat

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.

Vulnerability Scan Result

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Drop us a line!

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities