Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Home |
| Description: | Home |
| IP address | 200.58.101.107 |
| Country | AR  |
| AS number | AS27823 |
| Net name | Dattatec |
No open ports were found.
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Alpine.js 3.13.10 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Tiny Slider | JavaScript libraries |
| Livewire | Web frameworks, Miscellaneous |
| Laravel | Web frameworks |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| Matomo Analytics | Analytics |
| Nginx 1.14.1 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.2.10 | Programming languages |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-4577 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, when using Apache and PHP-CGI on Windows, if the system is set up to use certain code pages, Windows may use "Best-Fit" behavior to replace characters in command line given to Win32 API functions. PHP CGI module may misinterpret those characters as PHP options, which may allow a malicious user to pass options to PHP binary being run, and thus reveal the source code of scripts, run arbitrary PHP code on the server, etc. | php 8.2.10 | |
| 9.8 | CVE-2024-11236 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.31, 8.2.* before 8.2.26, 8.3.* before 8.3.14, uncontrolled long string inputs to ldap_escape() function on 32-bit systems can cause an integer overflow, resulting in an out-of-bounds write. | php 8.2.10 | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2019-9511 | Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to window size manipulation and stream prioritization manipulation, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker requests a large amount of data from a specified resource over multiple streams. They manipulate window size and stream priority to force the server to queue the data in 1-byte chunks. Depending on how efficiently this data is queued, this can consume excess CPU, memory, or both. | nginx 1.14.1 | |
| 7.8 | CVE-2019-9513 | Some HTTP/2 implementations are vulnerable to resource loops, potentially leading to a denial of service. The attacker creates multiple request streams and continually shuffles the priority of the streams in a way that causes substantial churn to the priority tree. This can consume excess CPU. | nginx 1.14.1 | |
| 7.7 | CVE-2024-5585 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, the fix for CVE-2024-1874 does not work if the command name includes trailing spaces. Original issue: when using proc_open() command with array syntax, due to insufficient escaping, if the arguments of the executed command are controlled by a malicious user, the user can supply arguments that would execute arbitrary commands in Windows shell. | php 8.2.10 | |
| 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. | nginx 1.14.1 | |
| 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. | nginx 1.14.1 | |
| 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. | nginx 1.14.1 | |
| 5.9 | CVE-2024-2408 | The openssl_private_decrypt function in PHP, when using PKCS1 padding (OPENSSL_PKCS1_PADDING, which is the default), is vulnerable to the Marvin Attack unless it is used with an OpenSSL version that includes the changes from this pull request: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13817 (rsa_pkcs1_implicit_rejection). These changes are part of OpenSSL 3.2 and have also been backported to stable versions of various Linux distributions, as well as to the PHP builds provided for Windows since the previous release. All distributors and builders should ensure that this version is used to prevent PHP from being vulnerable. PHP Windows builds for the versions 8.1.29, 8.2.20 and 8.3.8 and above include OpenSSL patches that fix the vulnerability. | php 8.2.10 | |
| 5.3 | CVE-2024-5458 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. | php 8.2.10 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
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-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://bellanala.com/ | sitio_simple_session | Set-Cookie: sitio_simple_session=eyJpdiI6IkNkM2VsdWhHRktpWktzSS9MM3Vyb3c9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiUFFrK3ZNbndYNFlIbU9NRkgwWmVzdDltdVNpRnVCeE4wNE56cHdkZStkVGVmd0JnRFBuS3RDQTR1aUZtUUtxMGNNUGpKUjNSZzZ4Sm1NV3NSYzUwMHRxUzgyMzgzeWJlaHpkU0JOTHpDWllKSHlZbFdXek4wSXRHVFVGQkFpUUYiLCJtYWMiOiIzMzQwZTExMzQzMzg0NTlhOWNlYmQyOTc5ZjMzMDgwYWVhZTczYzIyYTRhZDg5ZWYwNjdmYmZkOGM2MzI3NmUyIiwidGFnIjoiIn0%3D |
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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://bellanala.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 | The following form sends inputs of type password plainly in the URL: |
| https://bellanala.com/livewire | 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 Cookies: sitio_simple_session=eyJpdiI6InhNeTJDa0JyRHNvSnArWHlWK3lTNGc9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiampVQk1nbzAvUm81aW9tVGo5Q3J3S3BsajRYRTBONGhLTjZDSE9kK24zZmhPT29jW... | The following form sends inputs of type password plainly in the URL: |
Vulnerability description
We found a form which is submitted using a GET method and has inputs of the type password. The end result is that passwords are submitted in URLs.
Risk description
Passwords submitted in URLs have a higher chance of being leaked. The main reason is that URLs can be leaked in browser cross-site requests via the Referer header. Additionally, URLs are usually stored in all kinds of logs. If any access or error logs of the server were publicly accessible, an attacker could also harvest password from it.
Recommendation
You should submit passwords using POST rather than GET. This way sensitive data won't be shared to other locations via URLs.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A4 - Insecure Design |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://bellanala.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://bellanala.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://bellanala.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://bellanala.com/ | 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 |
|---|---|
| Alpine.js 3.13.10 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Tiny Slider | JavaScript libraries |
| Livewire | Web frameworks, Miscellaneous |
| Laravel | Web frameworks |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| Matomo Analytics | Analytics |
| Nginx 1.14.1 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.2.10 | Programming languages |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | 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.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://bellanala.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 | Email Address: nombre@ejemplo.com paularial2793@gmail.com |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6: Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A4: Insecure Design |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://bellanala.com/ |
|
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.
Recommendation
Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| bellanala.com | A | IPv4 address | 200.58.101.107 |
| bellanala.com | NS | Name server | ns3.hostmar.com |
| bellanala.com | NS | Name server | ns4.hostmar.com |
| bellanala.com | MX | Mail server | 20 mx1.bellanala.com |
| bellanala.com | MX | Mail server | 0 mail.bellanala.com |
| bellanala.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns3.hostmar.com. root.hostmar.com. 2025052507 28800 7200 2000000 86400 |
| bellanala.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua= ; ruf=" |
| bellanala.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.hostmar.com -all" |
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.