Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Home page | Ministero delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 2.42.233.153 |
| country | IT  |
| network_name | Fastweb SpA |
| asn | AS30722 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Twitter Ads | Advertising |
| Bootstrap 3.3.5 | UI frameworks |
| jQuery 3.6.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx 1.26.1 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Piwik PRO Core | Analytics |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Drupal 9 | CMS |
| HSTS | Security |
| Varnish 5.2 | Caching |
| YouTube | Video players |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-9082 | 9.8 | 0.33665 | 0.98167 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in Drupal Drupal core allows SQL Injection. This issue affects Drupal core: from 8.9.0 before 10.4.10, from 10.5.0 before 10.5.10, from 10.6.0 before 10.6.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.1.10, from 11.2.0 before 11.2.12, from 11.3.0 before 11.3.10. |
| CVE-2024-55638 | 9.8 | 0.00956 | 0.56676 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 7.0 before 7.102, from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55637 | 9.8 | 0.00803 | 0.51775 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55636 | 9.8 | 0.00904 | 0.54987 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so called gadget chain presents no direct threat, but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2020-13665 | 9.8 | 0.01275 | 0.66048 | Access bypass vulnerability in Drupal Core allows JSON:API when JSON:API is in read/write mode. Only sites that have the read_only set to FALSE under jsonapi.settings config are vulnerable. This issue affects: Drupal Drupal Core 8.8.x versions prior to 8.8.8; 8.9.x versions prior to 8.9.1; 9.0.x versions prior to 9.0.1. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-49975 | 7.5 | 0.01313 | 0.66894 | Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server's mod_http leads to denial of service via malicious HTTP requests. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.17 through 2.4.67. |
| CVE-2025-23419 | 5.3 | 0.02557 | 0.82998 | When multiple server blocks are configured to share the same IP address and port, an attacker can use session resumption to bypass client certificate authentication requirements on these servers. This vulnerability arises when TLS Session Tickets https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_ticket_key are used and/or the SSL session cache https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_cache are used in the default server and the default server is performing client certificate authentication. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated. |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-6484 | 6.4 | 0.00049 | 0.15167 | A vulnerability has been identified in Bootstrap that exposes users to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The issue is present in the carousel component, where the data-slide and data-slide-to attributes can be exploited through the href attribute of an <a> tag due to inadequate sanitization. This vulnerability could potentially enable attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript within the victim's browser. |
| CVE-2019-8331 | 6.1 | 0.1686 | 0.96647 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.1 and 4.3.x before 4.3.1, XSS is possible in the tooltip or popover data-template attribute. |
| CVE-2018-20677 | 6.1 | 0.04081 | 0.89375 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.0, XSS is possible in the affix configuration target property. |
| CVE-2018-20676 | 6.1 | 0.03929 | 0.88989 | In Bootstrap before 3.4.0, XSS is possible in the tooltip data-viewport attribute. |
| CVE-2018-14042 | 6.1 | 0.03991 | 0.89152 | In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the data-container property of tooltip. |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://mit.gov.it:443/ | mit, cookiesession1 | Set-Cookie: mit=rs1|ajI/n Set-Cookie: cookiesession1=678B2868F4B8D7B38CB6D925AE664170 |
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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://mit.gov.it:443/ | 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 | Suspicious comment BUG found in: |
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application's code contains suspicious comments that may be related to potential bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses. These comments often arise during development and testing phases but are inadvertently left in the code.
Risk description
The risk exists that attackers could analyze these comments to identify vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the application. While comments themselves do not directly lead to security breaches, they may guide attackers to focus their efforts on specific parts of the application, potentially uncovering and exploiting vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Remove comments that suggest the presence of bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses, before deploying the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-546 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Twitter Ads | Advertising |
| Bootstrap 3.3.5 | UI frameworks |
| jQuery 3.6.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx 1.26.1 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Piwik PRO Core | Analytics |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Drupal 9 | CMS |
| HSTS | Security |
| Varnish 5.2 | Caching |
| 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.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://mit.gov.it:443/ | 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-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://mit.gov.it:443/ | 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 | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://mit.gov.it:443/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET, POST` 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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
| CWE | CWE-1188 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-49975 | 7.5 | 0.01313 | 0.66894 | No | Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value vulnerability in Apache HTTP Server's mod_http leads to denial of service via malicious HTTP requests. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.17 through 2.4.67. |
| CVE-2025-23419 | 5.3 | 0.02557 | 0.82998 | No | When multiple server blocks are configured to share the same IP address and port, an attacker can use session resumption to bypass client certificate authentication requirements on these servers. This vulnerability arises when TLS Session Tickets https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_ticket_key are used and/or the SSL session cache https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_cache are used in the default server and the default server is performing client certificate authentication. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nginx 1.26.1
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-9082 | 9.8 | 0.33665 | 0.98167 | Yes | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in Drupal Drupal core allows SQL Injection. This issue affects Drupal core: from 8.9.0 before 10.4.10, from 10.5.0 before 10.5.10, from 10.6.0 before 10.6.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.1.10, from 11.2.0 before 11.2.12, from 11.3.0 before 11.3.10. |
| CVE-2024-55638 | 9.8 | 0.00956 | 0.56676 | No | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 7.0 before 7.102, from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55637 | 9.8 | 0.00803 | 0.51775 | No | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55636 | 9.8 | 0.00904 | 0.54987 | No | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so called gadget chain presents no direct threat, but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2020-13665 | 9.8 | 0.01275 | 0.66048 | No | Access bypass vulnerability in Drupal Core allows JSON:API when JSON:API is in read/write mode. Only sites that have the read_only set to FALSE under jsonapi.settings config are vulnerable. This issue affects: Drupal Drupal Core 8.8.x versions prior to 8.8.8; 8.9.x versions prior to 8.9.1; 9.0.x versions prior to 9.0.1. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Drupal 9
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.mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc-rua@mit.gov.it; ruf=mailto:dmarc-ruf@mit.gov.it; fo=1; pct=10" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.
Risk description
While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.
Recommendation
We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.
Evidence
We managed to detect that Nginx has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.26.1 End-of-life date: 2025-04-23 Latest version for the cycle: 1.26.3 This release cycle (1.26) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2024-04-23 and its latest release date was 2025-02-05.
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 1200 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0K+FKBKxLw1jQNep4TmD9lLCy16hz9S6+AfpfMUUz8LARMMoFXDrbvkA6pdsU7xUi/KOnCYa2bh/XOlt2cnD9veZb+ILPEfP3jCZXcdDbDIQALv0Z8kw6tmTeqNxL7crIho4LFCOz/J8Z+mEHESadVKWk6sg" "vmQPm69wSVjeYCRUeVN5Zf0t+SXggTDtASBOdDT8Pk94ucLhskhMmlfnxSZ7hvvQHW2Tv4JPsuMO3SoizuicBVpk/cPS0Gy0CE+6VSiqRayLja15EKPfHBKsYvrW5kYnTjus+FdFsRrkB/x8awwAknLHL1cluuVaNcKzveUOjqCsbgzVUbRcqMUIYQIDAQAB" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc-rua@mit.gov.it; ruf=mailto:dmarc-ruf@mit.gov.it; fo=1; pct=10" |
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
We managed to detect that Drupal has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 9 End-of-life date: 2021-06-16 Latest version for the cycle: 9.0.14 This release cycle (9.0) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2020-06-03 and its latest release date was 2021-05-25. The support ended on 2020-12-02.
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 2.6.32 | 94% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Drupal 9 | CMS |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| YouTube | Video players |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Varnish 5.2 | Caching |
| Nginx 1.26.1 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Piwik PRO Core | Analytics |
| Sectigo | 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.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 1200 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0K+FKBKxLw1jQNep4TmD9lLCy16hz9S6+AfpfMUUz8LARMMoFXDrbvkA6pdsU7xUi/KOnCYa2bh/XOlt2cnD9veZb+ILPEfP3jCZXcdDbDIQALv0Z8kw6tmTeqNxL7crIho4LFCOz/J8Z+mEHESadVKWk6sg" "vmQPm69wSVjeYCRUeVN5Zf0t+SXggTDtASBOdDT8Pk94ucLhskhMmlfnxSZ7hvvQHW2Tv4JPsuMO3SoizuicBVpk/cPS0Gy0CE+6VSiqRayLja15EKPfHBKsYvrW5kYnTjus+FdFsRrkB/x8awwAknLHL1cluuVaNcKzveUOjqCsbgzVUbRcqMUIYQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| mit.gov.it | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:2.42.233.164 ip4:2.42.233.159 ip4:2.42.238.11 ip4:2.42.233.163 ip4:2.42.233.165 ip4:2.42.233.166 ip4:2.42.238.12 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| mit.gov.it | A | IPv4 address | 2.42.233.153 |
| mit.gov.it | NS | Name server | nscorp3.dsl.vodafone.it |
| mit.gov.it | NS | Name server | nscorp4.dsl.vodafone.it |
| mit.gov.it | MX | Mail server | 20 mail1.mit.gov.it |
| mit.gov.it | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.mit.gov.it |
| mit.gov.it | MX | Mail server | 70 mail6.mit.gov.it |
| mit.gov.it | MX | Mail server | 60 mail5.mit.gov.it |
| mit.gov.it | MX | Mail server | 50 mail4.mit.gov.it |
| mit.gov.it | MX | Mail server | 40 mail3.mit.gov.it |
| mit.gov.it | MX | Mail server | 30 mail2.mit.gov.it |
| mit.gov.it | SOA | Start of Authority | fmifegridvru.dsl.vodafone.it. hostmaster.vodafone.it. 156 86400 7200 345600 3600 |
| mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=LtI5MNKo9s29OolfgtpFOsJyLm5E71tJMk-aC3_mZWo" |
| mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=Vm-fQ_CkolO82d7LKGaJrGUo4pikHfnYQgxNEQz9MNY" |
| mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "google-gws-recovery-domain-verification=64568745" |
| mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "yzmUlccvk6vLAebd8sJPJ+cu/baAQ00cft3jGWNr6c8=" |
| mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=-oHOfkfAZPODl_i_lJh8mX4VBJ6xrOCfLjZJltDwrRU" |
| mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "actalis-dcv=e6kjft8ejlbs1e56dqgf55fqqf" |
| mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "DEAL6war7Hb6h2zczkjD//G2dOKHK0RMUhw3iCr07qlrY+YGvut+Gn5UXrEDXbq6498vxOdOu923Ux0n/fBUEw==" |
| mit.gov.it | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:2.42.233.164 ip4:2.42.233.159 ip4:2.42.238.11 ip4:2.42.233.163 ip4:2.42.233.165 ip4:2.42.233.166 ip4:2.42.238.12 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
| _dmarc.mit.gov.it | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:dmarc-rua@mit.gov.it; ruf=mailto:dmarc-ruf@mit.gov.it; fo=1; pct=10" |
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.