Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk/

Scanned target: https://www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk/

Submitted: April 19, 2025 from SG

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	Sonic Safe & Secure Official Website
Description:	No description found

IP Information

IP address	142.250.185.243
Country	US
AS number	AS15169
Net name	Google LLC

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	Google httpd -
443/tcp	https	- -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
Google Font API	Font scripts
lit-element 4.1.1	JavaScript libraries
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
Google Sites	CMS
reCAPTCHA	Security
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk/	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

URL Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: Nonces should only use the base64 charset. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). report-uri: report-uri is deprecated in CSP3. Please use the report-to directive instead. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. 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'.

https://www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: Nonces should only use the base64 charset. script-src: 'unsafe-eval' allows the execution of code injected into DOM APIs such as eval(). report-uri: report-uri is deprecated in CSP3. Please use the report-to directive instead. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. 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'.

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
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
Google Font API	Font scripts
lit-element 4.1.1	JavaScript libraries
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
Google Sites	CMS
reCAPTCHA	Security
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers

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

URL
Missing: https://www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk/.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

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Method	Summary
https://www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk/	OPTIONS	We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: HEAD, GET` 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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk	A	IPv4 address	172.217.16.211
www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk	AAAA	IPv6 address	2a00:1450:4001:830::2013
www.sonicsafeandsecure.co.uk	CNAME	Canonical name	ghs.googlehosted.com

Risk description

An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.

Recommendation

We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Google Sites	CMS
lit-html 3.2.1	JavaScript libraries
lit-element 4.1.1	JavaScript libraries
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
reCAPTCHA	Security
Google Font API	Font scripts
Open Graph	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.