Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Trip.com: Book cheap flights, hotels, car rentals, trains and more |
| Description: | Book from a huge range of flights, hotels, trains, and much more - right at your fingertips. For fantastic travel offers, visit Trip.com! |
| IP address | 103.158.15.28 |
| Country | SG  |
| AS number | AS141389 |
| Net name | GOIP Business Solution PTE Ltd |
| IP address | 103.143.160.200 |
| Country | HK  |
| AS number | AS133929 |
| Net name | Twowin Co Limited |
80/tcp | http | nginx 1.20.1 |
443/tcp | https | nginx 1.20.1 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://uk.trip.com/ | UBT_VID, ibu_online_jump_site_result, ibu_online_home_language_match, ibulanguage, ibulocale | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: UBT_VID=1747846454725.2f75DMApWbYC Set-Cookie: ibu_online_jump_site_result={"site_url":[],"suggestion":["en-gb","","de-de"]} Set-Cookie: ibu_online_home_language_match={"isRedirect":false,"isShowSuggestion":true,"lastVisited":true,"region":"de","redirectSymbol":false} Set-Cookie: ibulanguage=EN Set-Cookie: ibulocale=en_gb |
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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://uk.trip.com/ | UBT_VID, ibu_online_jump_site_result, ibu_online_home_language_match, ibulanguage, ibulocale, cookiePricesDisplayed, ibu_country | Set-Cookie: UBT_VID=1747846454725.2f75DMApWbYC Set-Cookie: ibu_online_jump_site_result={"site_url":[],"suggestion":["en-gb","","de-de"]} Set-Cookie: ibu_online_home_language_match={"isRedirect":false,"isShowSuggestion":true,"lastVisited":true,"region":"de","redirectSymbol":false} Set-Cookie: ibulanguage=EN Set-Cookie: ibulocale=en_gb Set-Cookie: cookiePricesDisplayed=GBP Set-Cookie: ibu_country=GB |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://uk.trip.com/ | UBT_VID | Set-Cookie: .trip.com |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application sets cookies with a domain scope that is too broad. Specifically, cookies intended for use within a particular application are configured in such a way that they can be accessed by multiple subdomains of the same primary domain.
Risk description
The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com, hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from the main site.
Recommendation
The `Domain` attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to `Domain=app.mysite.com`
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://uk.trip.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://uk.trip.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://uk.trip.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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://uk.trip.com/flights/cheap-flights-to-maldives-146 | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-44487 | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. | |
| 7.1 | CVE-2022-41742 | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to cause a worker process crash, or might result in worker process memory disclosure by using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the module ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. | |
| 7 | CVE-2022-41741 | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to corrupt NGINX worker memory, resulting in its termination or potential other impact using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. | |
| 5.8 | CVE-2021-3618 | ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nginx 1.20.1
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.trip.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_reports@trip.com" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is configured with sp=none, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. This allows subdomains to send emails without being subject to DMARC checks, making it easier for attackers to spoof emails from these subdomains. Subdomains are often overlooked in email security, and attackers can exploit this misconfiguration to launch phishing or spoofing attacks from seemingly legitimate subdomains of a protected domain.
Risk description
When the DMARC record is configured with sp=none, subdomains are not subject to DMARC enforcement, allowing attackers to spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked. This creates a significant risk of phishing and impersonation attacks, where malicious emails appear to originate from trusted subdomains. These spoofed emails can be used to deceive users or damage the organization's reputation, undermining the security benefits of DMARC for the primary domain.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend that the subdomain policy should be updated to sp=reject to ensure that any email failing DMARC checks from subdomains is automatically rejected. This will help prevent unauthorized emails from being sent from subdomains, reducing the risk of spoofing and phishing. Additionally, it's important to regularly monitor DMARC reports to track email activity from subdomains and adjust policies as needed to maintain consistent security across the entire domain.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.trip.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_reports@trip.com" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDPmzn+GA8WjcLdLsTfmu+um5hy38rONlo+0SjHTsa1mvHoWBoAodusLZxKm741uQ+qV2BxjCi4usdyzp7lqV5691jFCcsaTWaJsR1hZWToqmJ5GJR2f7bm+rSqpVA1B5ZfypQAZDZZ4y6MFnHL8apZiqXq9gpKVsFNI8FtNLL1xQIDAQAB" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| trip.com | A | IPv4 address | 103.143.160.200 |
| trip.com | A | IPv4 address | 103.158.15.28 |
| trip.com | NS | Name server | a26-64.akam.net |
| trip.com | NS | Name server | a9-65.akam.net |
| trip.com | NS | Name server | a1-244.akam.net |
| trip.com | NS | Name server | a16-67.akam.net |
| trip.com | NS | Name server | a14-66.akam.net |
| trip.com | NS | Name server | a11-65.akam.net |
| trip.com | MX | Mail server | 50 mx3.trip.com.ctripgslb.com |
| trip.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mx1.trip.com.ctripgslb.com |
| trip.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mx2.trip.com.ctripgslb.com |
| trip.com | SOA | Start of Authority | a9-65.akam.net. hostmaster.trip.com. 2019127376 60 300 604800 900 |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "1334nlq5wrsnmmb97rqkxshh1wn0hrsm" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "JmS1QyQLwRduH4e4l2utR/WSLKfyKSi1Gzt6xjF9xYUhMQI+yyALDfmr36P1j5ja2+OjBgU/K3Mmv8bWS04rHw==" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "adobe-idp-site-verification=7716ea4a8f83821e53d217ec962e06a29b815cfa0f81f7fc3388e5ae0c9ef58b" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "tiktok-developers-site-verification=dTIaWemWey8Xvsx9jY1PbdOLlIrD60UE" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "globalsign-domain-verification=8frsHcE2ag-0ccaaP5BTpPmUJC8ob8pdjDQchfAWzD" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "atlassian-domain-verification=uix6c7QZQanqI81pLeily9VNfMddmMVHpeXWabEZgyrd32mO2nFPuyTMxXbcD9rE" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "_globalsign-domain-verification=4Azi4JnsL5pAJbTgHoG6kgfsnsl7QcptSk1rqqNVoJ" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "openai-domain-verification=dv-dM8TX2XIg3ElArKkcxpEDW0P" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=SZw7sFjvMn0hDyxTj4m3N93T7k9XCiTZjqUJeJD2PDE" |
| trip.com | TXT | Text record | "_tvfpdvaarm60otpmgeworo5ler1nfgg" |
| trip.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.trip.com -all" |
| _dmarc.trip.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rua=mailto:dmarc_reports@trip.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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| AVtech Room Alert 26W environmental monitor | 86% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| trip.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.trip.com -all" |
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDPmzn+GA8WjcLdLsTfmu+um5hy38rONlo+0SjHTsa1mvHoWBoAodusLZxKm741uQ+qV2BxjCi4usdyzp7lqV5691jFCcsaTWaJsR1hZWToqmJ5GJR2f7bm+rSqpVA1B5ZfypQAZDZZ4y6MFnHL8apZiqXq9gpKVsFNI8FtNLL1xQIDAQAB" |
| rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCoOHTu1zGmzhkzTgdbS3alsPKWOhAUmRnTtNN25yyFxVDxtkIo5HaEvgn696F3epQWBRhPgzr0Q5lJrC/BiQgC7TFU+gVx3KC5X4fHrlnripG+soVPVTbcRk3h0muMHJw17QbmHA9WdmyPzTYYfn/MDsgEbO/WOmyuUHK9tjihbQIDAQAB" | |
| selector1 | rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDF/xeHswHkjfpNGPnJEiXb4vwCecVcjuNHM8gNJOGVt69hITqMo742ZXBd4harUunF22xnX5ysGu7FtuhnLM9IfFDGzu8309Pf0wCv38JvK4emjFuzzla0Jp0SPIjeO4vZNIbdzHTwzkJzowbcUZ7GDZzv14V9Oll2ZOng/eTSFwIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
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.