Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Met Sols METAL SOLUTION for Engineering Industries |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 95.217.121.137 |
| country | FI  |
| network_name | Hetzner Online GMBH |
| asn | AS24940 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
26/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
53/tcp | domain | PowerDNS Authoritative Server 4.9.5 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
111/tcp | rpcbind | - 2-4 |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
2078/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2080/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2082/tcp | http | - - |
2083/tcp | https | - - |
2086/tcp | http | - - |
2087/tcp | https | - - |
3306/tcp | mysql | MySQL - |
8080/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
8443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Elementor 3.20.2 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Mailcheck 1.1.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| punycode 1.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.32.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.13.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress 6.8.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| Astra 4.5.2 | WordPress themes |
| WPForms 1.8.7.2 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| WhatsApp Business Chat | Live chat |
| YouTube | Video players |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-11205 | 8.5 | 0.00196 | 0.41921 | The WPForms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'wpforms_is_admin_page' function in versions starting from 1.8.4 up to, and including, 1.9.2.1. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to refund payments and cancel subscriptions. |
| CVE-2024-13403 | 6.4 | 0.00087 | 0.25913 | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘fieldHTML’ parameter in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. |
| CVE-2024-56276 | 4.3 | 0.0026 | 0.49246 | Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPForms Contact Form by WPForms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Contact Form by WPForms: from n/a through 1.9.2.2. |
| CVE-2024-10593 | 4.3 | 0.00072 | 0.2254 | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_admin_ui function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete WPForm logs via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
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://metsols.com/wp-content/plugins/elementor | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://metsols.com/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://metsols.com/wp-content/plugins/wpforms-lite/assets | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://metsols.com/wp-includes/js/jquery | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://metsols.com/wp-includes/js/jquery/ui | Found output resembling directory listing. |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's web server is affected by a Directory Listing vulnerability in its URL structure. Directory listing is enabled due to misconfigured server settings, allowing attackers to view all files and subdirectories on the server.
Risk description
The risk is that it's often the case that sensitive files are "hidden" among public files in that location and attackers can use this vulnerability to access them.
Recommendation
We recommend reconfiguring the web server in order to deny directory listing. Furthermore, you should verify that there are no sensitive files at the mentioned URLs.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-548 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://metsols.com/ | 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://metsols.com/ | 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://metsols.com/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://metsols.com/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Elementor 3.20.2 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Mailcheck 1.1.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| punycode 1.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.32.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.13.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress 6.8.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| Astra 4.5.2 | WordPress themes |
| WPForms 1.8.7.2 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| WhatsApp Business Chat | Live chat |
| YouTube | Video players |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://metsols.com/ | 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: info@metsols.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
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-11205 | 8.5 | 0.00196 | 0.41921 | No | The WPForms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'wpforms_is_admin_page' function in versions starting from 1.8.4 up to, and including, 1.9.2.1. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to refund payments and cancel subscriptions. |
| CVE-2024-13403 | 6.4 | 0.00087 | 0.25913 | No | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘fieldHTML’ parameter in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. |
| CVE-2024-56276 | 4.3 | 0.0026 | 0.49246 | No | Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPForms Contact Form by WPForms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Contact Form by WPForms: from n/a through 1.9.2.2. |
| CVE-2024-10593 | 4.3 | 0.00072 | 0.2254 | No | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_admin_ui function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete WPForm logs via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WPForms 1.8.7.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-11205 | 8.5 | 0.00196 | 0.41921 | No | The WPForms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'wpforms_is_admin_page' function in versions starting from 1.8.4 up to, and including, 1.9.2.1. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to refund payments and cancel subscriptions. |
| CVE-2024-13403 | 6.4 | 0.00087 | 0.25913 | No | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘fieldHTML’ parameter in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. |
| CVE-2024-56276 | 4.3 | 0.0026 | 0.49246 | No | Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPForms Contact Form by WPForms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Contact Form by WPForms: from n/a through 1.9.2.2. |
| CVE-2024-10593 | 4.3 | 0.00072 | 0.2254 | No | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_admin_ui function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete WPForm logs via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WPForms 1.8.7.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible MySQL service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 3306/tcp open mysql MySQL
Vulnerability 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
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
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp Pure-FTPd
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns5.mywebsitebox.com, ns6.mywebsitebox.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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0yZ8wz60EAIDC98enNUIzdI4sxsShkCahxvV4JEHMiOkZdo4lgI7zMNchP4lIice0V12hqnFaEGKRhP0UR5DDY74WaW8xA9kDeLsJRGRjzD2nZ3PVCcFqID/ooqgQ3uw2/b9MQoSdKtXSyc9S7gr3+BYxKaknrR/pIn82sV4FxgMDyPjwH0wuxl4qxkpCtorH" "AumxiGKcaHW8zJSAqtZ3p76KAm+PQAP8z/szjkD9sCcHtxXdo39ZGKaCMwAVlbw0fDH2sEmD/dXjYBnsz5YaxF2wekiLbLuxRhGMHizpfE0pHDKgfdDXP5jjv6Jm9Qqq1019YA00B/3WW/6+9os4wIDAQAB;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| metsols.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:95.217.121.137 +a +mx +ip4:65.21.71.76 ~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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Basic | 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.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0yZ8wz60EAIDC98enNUIzdI4sxsShkCahxvV4JEHMiOkZdo4lgI7zMNchP4lIice0V12hqnFaEGKRhP0UR5DDY74WaW8xA9kDeLsJRGRjzD2nZ3PVCcFqID/ooqgQ3uw2/b9MQoSdKtXSyc9S7gr3+BYxKaknrR/pIn82sV4FxgMDyPjwH0wuxl4qxkpCtorH" "AumxiGKcaHW8zJSAqtZ3p76KAm+PQAP8z/szjkD9sCcHtxXdo39ZGKaCMwAVlbw0fDH2sEmD/dXjYBnsz5YaxF2wekiLbLuxRhGMHizpfE0pHDKgfdDXP5jjv6Jm9Qqq1019YA00B/3WW/6+9os4wIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Basic | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cPanel | Hosting panels |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.8.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| YouTube | Video players |
| WPForms 1.8.7.2 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| Astra 4.5.2 | WordPress themes |
| Elementor 3.20.2 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| punycode 1.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Mailcheck 1.1.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 5.1 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.8.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| YouTube | Video players |
| WPForms 1.8.7.2 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Astra 4.5.2 | WordPress themes |
| Elementor 3.20.2 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| punycode 1.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Mailcheck 1.1.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| metsols.com | A | IPv4 address | 95.217.121.137 |
| metsols.com | NS | Name server | ns5.mywebsitebox.com |
| metsols.com | NS | Name server | ns6.mywebsitebox.com |
| metsols.com | MX | Mail server | 0 metsols.com |
| metsols.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns5.mywebsitebox.com. notify.hostbreak.com. 2025101508 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
| metsols.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:95.217.121.137 +a +mx +ip4:65.21.71.76 ~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.