Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | TNS | Network IaaS Solutions for Global Connectivity |
| Description: | Discover TNS global connectivity and infrastructure-as-a-service solutions for your mission-critical transactions. |
| ip_address | 23.185.0.1 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Fastly Inc |
| asn | AS54113 |
80/tcp | http | Pantheon - |
443/tcp | https | Pantheon - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.2 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Breadcrumb NavXT 7.4.1 | WordPress plugins |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| MariaDB | Databases |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Pantheon | PaaS |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| ShareThis | Widgets |
| WordPress 6.8.3 | CMS, Blogs |
| Fastly | CDN |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Max Mega Menu | Widgets, WordPress plugins |
| OneTrust | Cookie compliance |
| HSTS | Security |
| Varnish | Caching |
| Yoast SEO 26.1 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
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).
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://tnsi.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 |
|
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application is serving mixed content. This occurs when initial HTML is loaded over a secure HTTPS connection, but other resources (such as images, videos, stylesheets, scripts) are loaded over an insecure HTTP connection. This is called mixed content because both HTTP and HTTPS content are being loaded to display the same page, and the initial request was secure over HTTPS.
Risk description
The risk is that the insecurely loaded resources (HTTP) on an otherwise secure page (HTTPS) can be intercepted or manipulated by attackers, potentially leading to eavesdropping or content tampering.
Recommendation
Ensure that all external resources the page references are loaded using HTTPS.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-311 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://tnsi.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 |
|---|---|
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.2 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Breadcrumb NavXT 7.4.1 | WordPress plugins |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| MariaDB | Databases |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Pantheon | PaaS |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| ShareThis | Widgets |
| WordPress 6.8.3 | CMS, Blogs |
| Fastly | CDN |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Max Mega Menu | Widgets, WordPress plugins |
| OneTrust | Cookie compliance |
| HSTS | Security |
| Varnish | Caching |
| Yoast SEO 26.1 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
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
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.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:36e99b50af3a118@rep.dmarcanalyzer.com; ruf=mailto:36e99b50af3a118@for.dmarcanalyzer.com; fo=1;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:36e99b50af3a118@rep.dmarcanalyzer.com; ruf=mailto:36e99b50af3a118@for.dmarcanalyzer.com; fo=1;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| tnsi.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:aspmx.pardot.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:us._netblocks.mimecast.com -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.8.3 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| MariaDB | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Varnish | Caching |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.2 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Pantheon | PaaS |
| Yoast SEO 26.1 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
| Fastly | CDN |
| Max Mega Menu | Widgets, WordPress plugins |
| ShareThis | Widgets |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| OneTrust | Cookie compliance |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| HSTS | Security |
| Breadcrumb NavXT 7.4.1 | WordPress plugins |
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 |
|---|---|
| OpenWrt Kamikaze 7.09 (Linux 2.6.22) | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 200608 | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDGoQCNwAQdJBy23MrShs1EuHqK/dtDC33QrTqgWd9CJmtM3CK2ZiTYugkhcxnkEtGbzg+IJqcDRNkZHyoRezTf6QbinBB2dbyANEuwKI5DVRBFowQOj9zvM3IvxAEboMlb0szUjAoML94HOkKuGuCkdZ1gbVEi3GcVwrIQphal1QIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| tnsi.com | A | IPv4 address | 23.185.0.1 |
| tnsi.com | NS | Name server | dns2.tnsi.com |
| tnsi.com | NS | Name server | dns3.tnsi.com |
| tnsi.com | NS | Name server | dns4.tnsi.com |
| tnsi.com | NS | Name server | dns1.tnsi.com |
| tnsi.com | MX | Mail server | 5 us-smtp-inbound-1.mimecast.com |
| tnsi.com | MX | Mail server | 10 us-smtp-inbound-2.mimecast.com |
| tnsi.com | SOA | Start of Authority | dns1.tnsi.com. hostmaster.tnsi.com. 2025092510 300 600 864000 60 |
| tnsi.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2620:12a:8000::1 |
| tnsi.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2620:12a:8001::1 |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "pardot431862=41d7301b533e1e0e9e3021b5a96d7aefea6ceecf6d7479bc1165e0367a89b311" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "4hILBbgVbwldM/q6b/6HloLwDtqnCdqIileA37OP6Ydwyrh9eb9+0iIpYsxj1xvpgxUWVxkKdo8OZ2aSysJl8Q==" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "479a93c5-9d13-4a47-8904-676b21070160" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "MS=ms86567410" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "J6t3l8T1/f2538YXDao+zylxDKpqNmuC04B7g5mBK7rHg1PI57vgZ1RI2+FCTOtfo86a4hW1N0co/htACISUFw==" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "amazonses:KrTaxt1FywOAMAdcBCSNxoDAB7ag4WUsMMzq27aJLtU=" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "intersight=28f17fefd31dd6e99559a3c46b90f398c980ab438570ed970dfa394e72757a31" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "adobe-idp-site-verification=01d901c7a6436194fcf5a75e962e0533ef88132433bda0c8da4c61520e004e29" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "duo_sso_verification=GxnxB3BlaL5TOySkULDioFmjsaduaclClIuTa40mlK4EaEkY9L7lPldUduTIftw7" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "onetrust-domain-verification=6341f9366bd043cda74f9160ab9a35fb" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "atlassian-domain-verification=HiG4F/J1NaWYDdllYaFCCTZK780AoQ1laTicFu2z44KEkC9wVAnaELVts1rGfiwK" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "atlassian-domain-verification=MrVXseSrUInrlU+0C3en7/w4TBt+Ah6W/FFYCKPasaq83uXynju87We4kSRJ/w29" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "apple-domain-verification=zu4mNpzRWw3fDTO5" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "adobe-idp-site-verification=c4f003ce66cd0a6a7fb0e5b536e8eb6e079c2ebcb59ddb178716460ae7daadb9" |
| tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "1d85585a-60e2-48bf-9cc7-17cccd4b88f3" |
| tnsi.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:aspmx.pardot.com include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:us._netblocks.mimecast.com -all" |
| _dmarc.tnsi.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:36e99b50af3a118@rep.dmarcanalyzer.com; ruf=mailto:36e99b50af3a118@for.dmarcanalyzer.com; fo=1;" |
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.