Vulnerability Scan Result

IP address | 62.169.16.130 |
Country | DE ![]() |
AS number | - |
Net name | - |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 9.2p1 Debian 2+deb12u5 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.62 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.62 |
3128/tcp | http | Squid http proxy 5.7 |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
Debian | Operating systems |
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62 | Web servers |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
Priority Hints | Performance |
WooCommerce 9.8.1 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
WP Rocket | Caching, WordPress plugins |
HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://postavka-za-nozhove.shop/ | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
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-693 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
Debian | Operating systems |
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62 | Web servers |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
Priority Hints | Performance |
WooCommerce 9.8.1 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
WP Rocket | Caching, WordPress plugins |
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
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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
---|---|---|---|
9.3 | CVE-2023-46846 | SQUID is vulnerable to HTTP request smuggling, caused by chunked decoder lenience, allows a remote attacker to perform Request/Response smuggling past firewall and frontend security systems. | |
8.6 | CVE-2023-46724 | Squid is a caching proxy for the Web. Due to an Improper Validation of Specified Index bug, Squid versions 3.3.0.1 through 5.9 and 6.0 prior to 6.4 compiled using `--with-openssl` are vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack against SSL Certificate validation. This problem allows a remote server to perform Denial of Service against Squid Proxy by initiating a TLS Handshake with a specially crafted SSL Certificate in a server certificate chain. This attack is limited to HTTPS and SSL-Bump. This bug is fixed in Squid version 6.4. In addition, patches addressing this problem for the stable releases can be found in Squid's patch archives. Those who you use a prepackaged version of Squid should refer to the package vendor for availability information on updated packages. | |
8.6 | CVE-2024-25111 | Squid is a web proxy cache. Starting in version 3.5.27 and prior to version 6.8, Squid may be vulnerable to a Denial of Service attack against HTTP Chunked decoder due to an uncontrolled recursion bug. This problem allows a remote attacker to cause Denial of Service when sending a crafted, chunked, encoded HTTP Message. This bug is fixed in Squid version 6.8. In addition, patches addressing this problem for the stable releases can be found in Squid's patch archives. There is no workaround for this issue. | |
7.5 | CVE-2023-46847 | Squid is vulnerable to a Denial of Service, where a remote attacker can perform buffer overflow attack by writing up to 2 MB of arbitrary data to heap memory when Squid is configured to accept HTTP Digest Authentication. | |
7.5 | CVE-2023-46848 | Squid is vulnerable to Denial of Service, where a remote attacker can perform DoS by sending ftp:// URLs in HTTP Request messages or constructing ftp:// URLs from FTP Native input. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Squid Http Proxy 5.7
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 that Squid http proxy has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.7 End-of-life date: 2023-07-06 Latest version for the cycle: 5.9 This release cycle (5) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2021-07-31 and its latest release date was 2023-05-01.
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 |
---|---|---|---|
postavka-za-nozhove.shop | A | IPv4 address | 62.169.16.130 |
postavka-za-nozhove.shop | NS | Name server | augustus.ns.cloudflare.com |
postavka-za-nozhove.shop | NS | Name server | laura.ns.cloudflare.com |
postavka-za-nozhove.shop | SOA | Start of Authority | augustus.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2369717372 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
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
Vulnerability description
OS detection couldn't determine the operating system.
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 |
---|---|
WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
Debian | Operating systems |
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62 | Web servers |
WP Rocket | Caching, WordPress plugins |
WooCommerce 9.8.1 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
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.