Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://garantiya.com/

Scanned target: https://garantiya.com/

Submitted: May 29, 2025 from ID

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	Банківські гарантії для тендера, турагента • Сервіс Гарантія.Ком
Description:	Сервіс банківських гарантій Garantiya.Com Банківська гарантія для тендера Prozorro, виконання договору, турагента, азартних ігор та ін. Швидке оформлення тендерної гарантії!

IP Information

IP address	188.114.96.7
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

IP address	188.114.97.7
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

Open Ports

2082/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
2083/tcp	https	nginx -
2086/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
2087/tcp	https	nginx -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Facebook Pixel 2.9.203	Analytics
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
Next.js	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
React	JavaScript frameworks
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Priority Hints	Performance
Cloudflare	CDN
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://garantiya.com/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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://garantiya.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

URL	Evidence
https://garantiya.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	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://garantiya.com/ua	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: ` Електронна адреса Пароль <input class="flex text-sm file:border-0 file:bg-transparent file:text-sm file:font-medium placeholder:text-muted-foreground disabled:cursor-not-allowed disabled:opacity-50 focus-visible:outline focus-visible:ring-border-0 ring-0 ring-offset-transparent focus-visible:ring-0 focus-visible:ring-offset-0 h-full w-full rounded-[7px] bg-transparent px-3 py-[9px] transition-a... (truncated)

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

Software / Version	Category
Facebook Pixel 2.9.203	Analytics
Google Analytics GA4	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
Next.js	JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator
React	JavaScript frameworks
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Priority Hints	Performance
Cloudflare	CDN
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	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

URL
https://garantiya.com/robots.txt

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

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://garantiya.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: info@garantiya.com
https://garantiya.com/ua	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: example@garantiya.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

URL	Evidence
https://garantiya.com/ua	<input class="flex text-sm file:border-0 file:bg-transparent file:text-sm file:font-medium placeholder:text-muted-foreground disabled:cursor-not-allowed disabled:opacity-50 focus-visible:outline focus-visible:ring-border-0 ring-0 ring-offset-transparent focus-visible:ring-0 focus-visible:ring-offset-0 h-full w-full rounded-[7px] bg-transparent px-3 py-[9px] transition-all outline outline-0 focus:outline-0 input__shadow peer focus:border-secondary input__shadow min-h-[42px] border border-border" name="email" placeholder="example@garantiya.com" value=""/> <input class="flex text-sm file:border-0 file:bg-transparent file:text-sm file:font-medium placeholder:text-muted-foreground disabled:cursor-not-allowed disabled:opacity-50 focus-visible:outline focus-visible:ring-border-0 ring-0 ring-offset-transparent focus-visible:ring-0 focus-visible:ring-offset-0 h-full w-full rounded-[7px] bg-transparent px-3 py-[9px] transition-all outline outline-0 focus:outline-0 input__shadow peer border border-border focus:border-secondary pr-10 min-h-[42px]" name="password" placeholder="Введіть пароль" type="password" value=""/> <button class="inline-flex items-center justify-center whitespace-nowrap rounded-md text-sm font-medium ring-offset-background focus-visible:outline-none focus-visible:ring-2 focus-visible:ring-ring focus-visible:ring-offset-2 disabled:pointer-events-none disabled:text-disabled-accent transition-colors duration-200 disabled:bg-disabled h-10 px-4 py-1.5 bg-primary text-primary-foreground hover:bg-primary/90 w-full" type="submit"> <!-- -->Продовжити</button>

https://garantiya.com/ua

<input class="flex text-sm file:border-0 file:bg-transparent file:text-sm file:font-medium placeholder:text-muted-foreground disabled:cursor-not-allowed disabled:opacity-50 focus-visible:outline focus-visible:ring-border-0 ring-0 ring-offset-transparent focus-visible:ring-0 focus-visible:ring-offset-0 h-full w-full rounded-[7px] bg-transparent px-3 py-[9px] transition-all outline outline-0 focus:outline-0 input__shadow peer focus:border-secondary input__shadow min-h-[42px] border border-border" name="email" placeholder="example@garantiya.com" value=""/> <input class="flex text-sm file:border-0 file:bg-transparent file:text-sm file:font-medium placeholder:text-muted-foreground disabled:cursor-not-allowed disabled:opacity-50 focus-visible:outline focus-visible:ring-border-0 ring-0 ring-offset-transparent focus-visible:ring-0 focus-visible:ring-offset-0 h-full w-full rounded-[7px] bg-transparent px-3 py-[9px] transition-all outline outline-0 focus:outline-0 input__shadow peer border border-border focus:border-secondary pr-10 min-h-[42px]" name="password" placeholder="Введіть пароль" type="password" value=""/> <button class="inline-flex items-center justify-center whitespace-nowrap rounded-md text-sm font-medium ring-offset-background focus-visible:outline-none focus-visible:ring-2 focus-visible:ring-ring focus-visible:ring-offset-2 disabled:pointer-events-none disabled:text-disabled-accent transition-colors duration-200 disabled:bg-disabled h-10 px-4 py-1.5 bg-primary text-primary-foreground hover:bg-primary/90 w-full" type="submit"> Продовжити</button>

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.

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://garantiya.com/.well-known/security.txt

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
_dmarc.garantiya.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@garantiya.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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.garantiya.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@garantiya.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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.garantiya.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@garantiya.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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
garantiya.com	A	IPv4 address	188.114.97.7
garantiya.com	A	IPv4 address	188.114.96.7
garantiya.com	NS	Name server	emerson.ns.cloudflare.com
garantiya.com	NS	Name server	sureena.ns.cloudflare.com
garantiya.com	MX	Mail server	0 garantiya-com.mail.protection.outlook.com
garantiya.com	SOA	Start of Authority	emerson.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2373224537 10000 2400 604800 1800
garantiya.com	AAAA	IPv6 address	2a06:98c1:3121::7
garantiya.com	AAAA	IPv6 address	2a06:98c1:3120::7
garantiya.com	TXT	Text record	"MS=ms21034313"
garantiya.com	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com ip4:185.46.151.195 ip4:91.202.74.139 -all"
_dmarc.garantiya.com	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@garantiya.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.

Operating System	Accuracy
FreeBSD 11.1-STABLE	91%

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
garantiya.com	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com ip4:185.46.151.195 ip4:91.202.74.139 -all"

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
selector1	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0krYIHD+3Hq4CblZ/LJJWJBCiwaIilcJWF1RjtMn5OOaaFjwhbR15rEvX27/NLyJE6IDIeggTPiZn0woqGwXJ5yRANNX+yB2R3jagm7U0xDRN8VS7fH7lx087u0LP5kbS+WteNFbzXjcnzXtfLueTeNwHHavhWe5Ufttp/32asbvtYxp0QkgQRSormDODbQoJ" "z0pQHS221g8RQs6Ntx4hwN3jTtqTsPmQX3kkFyVOLP28hGQRHlX70qoFRPM3bL4Y2UIatmhcxahYTbuo0OMYQ8efmM6PQkwOp5u0kotrKUhx0qd03B58DHiZNagEthfNzAnOX9Kku8c6wuoaJa47QIDAQAB;"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Cloudflare	CDN

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
Cloudflare	CDN

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.