Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Autohaus Rosegger | Mürztal |
| Description: | Autohaus Rosegger im Mürztal: Mercedes-Benz und Subaru, Neu- und Gebrauchtwagen, Service, Reparatur und persönliche Beratung. |
| ip_address | 88.198.62.189 |
| country | DE  |
| network_name | Hetzner Online GmbH |
| asn | AS24940 |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 8.9p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu0.15 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
8443/tcp | https-alt | sw-cp-server - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Borlabs Cookie | Cookie compliance, WordPress plugins |
| Bricks | Page builders, WordPress themes |
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.4.22 | Programming languages |
| RankMath SEO | WordPress plugins, SEO |
| Splide | JavaScript libraries |
| Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress 7.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| WP Rocket 3.22.0.3 | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Lodash 1.13.8 | JavaScript libraries |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://autohaus-rosegger.at/ | 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
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 |
|---|---|
| Borlabs Cookie | Cookie compliance, WordPress plugins |
| Bricks | Page builders, WordPress themes |
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 8.4.22 | Programming languages |
| RankMath SEO | WordPress plugins, SEO |
| Splide | JavaScript libraries |
| Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress 7.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| WP Rocket 3.22.0.3 | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Lodash 1.13.8 | JavaScript libraries |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://autohaus-rosegger.at/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://autohaus-rosegger.at/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://autohaus-rosegger.at/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://autohaus-rosegger.at/ | 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: office@rosegger.co.at |
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 | |
| 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 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://autohaus-rosegger.at/wp-json/oembed/1.0/embed | GET | Query: format=xml url=https://autohaus-rosegger.at/ 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 | Possible API endpoint found at |
| https://autohaus-rosegger.at/wp-json/oembed/1.0/embed | GET | Query: url=https://autohaus-rosegger.at/ 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 | Possible API endpoint found at |
Vulnerability description
We found API endpoints while crawling the given web application.
Risk description
These endpoints may represent an attack surface for malicious actors interested in API-specific vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Use the API Scanner to perform a more thorough vulnerability check for these endpoints, if an API specification is present.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-27511 | 7.5 | 0.02455 | 0.82375 | No | An issue was discovered in the stripTags and unescapeHTML components in Prototype 1.7.3 where an attacker can cause a Regular Expression Denial of Service (ReDOS) through stripping crafted HTML tags. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Prototype 1.7.3
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns5.kasserver.com, ns6.kasserver.com
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| autohaus-rosegger.at | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 a mx include:spf.kasserver.com include:mailgun.org ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.autohaus-rosegger.at | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:df880fcf@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:b9704b32@inbox.ondmarc.com; ruf=mailto:df880fcf@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:b9704b32@inbox.ondmarc.com;" |
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
We checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.autohaus-rosegger.at | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:df880fcf@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:b9704b32@inbox.ondmarc.com; ruf=mailto:df880fcf@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:b9704b32@inbox.ondmarc.com;" |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 5.4 | 98% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 7.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 8.4.22 | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| RankMath SEO | WordPress plugins, SEO |
| Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Bricks | Page builders, WordPress themes |
| WP Rocket 3.22.0.3 | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Borlabs Cookie | Cookie compliance, WordPress plugins |
| Splide | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Lodash 1.13.8 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 7.0 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 8.4.22 | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| RankMath SEO | WordPress plugins, SEO |
| Vue.js | JavaScript frameworks |
| Bricks | Page builders, WordPress themes |
| WP Rocket 3.22.0.3 | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Borlabs Cookie | Cookie compliance, WordPress plugins |
| Splide | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Lodash 1.13.8 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| autohaus-rosegger.at | A | IPv4 address | 88.198.62.189 |
| autohaus-rosegger.at | NS | Name server | ns5.kasserver.com |
| autohaus-rosegger.at | NS | Name server | ns6.kasserver.com |
| autohaus-rosegger.at | MX | Mail server | 10 w0150688.kasserver.com |
| autohaus-rosegger.at | SOA | Start of Authority | ns5.kasserver.com. hostmaster.kasserver.com. 2606161440 28800 7200 1209600 7200 |
| autohaus-rosegger.at | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a01:4f8:222:616::2 |
| autohaus-rosegger.at | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 a mx include:spf.kasserver.com include:mailgun.org ~all" |
| _dmarc.autohaus-rosegger.at | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:df880fcf@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:b9704b32@inbox.ondmarc.com; ruf=mailto:df880fcf@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:b9704b32@inbox.ondmarc.com;" |
Risk description
An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.
Recommendation
We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Plesk | Hosting panels |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Bootstrap 1.1 | UI frameworks |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| RequireJS 2.3.8 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Prototype 1.7.3 | JavaScript frameworks |
| React Router 7.14.2 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| core-js 3.49.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.