Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Sjöväder STHLM — Maintenance |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 185.189.51.40 |
| country | SE  |
| network_name | Yelles AB |
| asn | AS206170 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
25/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.100.1 |
53/tcp | domain | ISC BIND 9.11.36 |
80/tcp | http | LiteSpeed httpd - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot DirectAdmin pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | LiteSpeed httpd - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.100.1 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.100.1 |
993/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
995/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot DirectAdmin pop3d - |
2222/tcp | EtherNetIP-1 | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Response URL | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| http://sandbox.zaeta.net/maintenance.html | http://sandbox.zaeta.net/maintenance.html | Communication is made over unsecure, unencrypted HTTP. |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the communication between the web browser and the server is done using the HTTP protocol, which transmits data unencrypted over the network.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who manages to intercept the communication at the network level can read and modify the data transmitted (including passwords, secret tokens, credit card information and other sensitive data).
Recommendation
We recommend you to reconfigure the web server to use HTTPS - which encrypts the communication between the web browser and the server.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-319 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://sandbox.zaeta.net/maintenance.html | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://sandbox.zaeta.net/maintenance.html | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
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 |
|---|---|
| http://sandbox.zaeta.net/maintenance.html | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| http://sandbox.zaeta.net/maintenance.html | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: OPTIONS,HEAD,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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-5946 | 7.5 | 0.01874 | 0.78483 | No | Multiple flaws have been identified in `named` related to the handling of DNS messages whose CLASS is not Internet (`IN`) — for example, `CHAOS` or `HESIOD`, or DNS messages that specify meta-classes (`ANY` or `NONE`) in the question section. Specially crafted requests reaching the affected code paths — recursion, dynamic updates (`UPDATE`), zone change notifications (`NOTIFY`), or processing of `IN`-specific record types in non-`IN` data — can cause assertion failures in `named`. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.48, 9.20.0 through 9.20.22, 9.21.0 through 9.21.21, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.48-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.22-S1. |
| CVE-2026-3039 | 7.5 | 0.01047 | 0.62762 | No | BIND servers that are configured to use TKEY-based authentication via GSS-API tokens are vulnerable to excessive memory consumption when receiving and processing maliciously-constructed packets. Typically these servers will be found in Active Directory integrated DNS deployments and/or Kerberos-secured DNS environments. This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.0.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.48, 9.20.0 through 9.20.22, 9.21.0 through 9.21.21, 9.9.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.48-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.22-S1. |
| CVE-2026-1519 | 7.5 | 0.01599 | 0.74728 | No | If a BIND resolver is performing DNSSEC validation and encounters a maliciously crafted zone, the resolver may consume excessive CPU. Authoritative-only servers are generally unaffected, although there are circumstances where authoritative servers may make recursive queries (see: https://kb.isc.org/docs/why-does-my-authoritative-server-make-recursive-queries). This issue affects BIND 9 versions 9.11.0 through 9.16.50, 9.18.0 through 9.18.46, 9.20.0 through 9.20.20, 9.21.0 through 9.21.19, 9.11.3-S1 through 9.16.50-S1, 9.18.11-S1 through 9.18.46-S1, and 9.20.9-S1 through 9.20.20-S1. |
| CVE-2023-50868 | 7.5 | 0.81729 | 0.99629 | No | The Closest Encloser Proof aspect of the DNS protocol (in RFC 5155 when RFC 9276 guidance is skipped) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption for SHA-1 computations) via DNSSEC responses in a random subdomain attack, aka the "NSEC3" issue. The RFC 5155 specification implies that an algorithm must perform thousands of iterations of a hash function in certain situations. |
| CVE-2023-50387 | 7.5 | 0.99988 | 0.99984 | No | Certain DNSSEC aspects of the DNS protocol (in RFC 4033, 4034, 4035, 6840, and related RFCs) allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via one or more DNSSEC responses, aka the "KeyTrap" issue. One of the concerns is that, when there is a zone with many DNSKEY and RRSIG records, the protocol specification implies that an algorithm must evaluate all combinations of DNSKEY and RRSIG records. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Isc Bind 9.11.36
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 managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service. Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2026-09-25 13:30 EEST Nmap scan report for sandbox.zaeta.net (185.189.51.40) Host is up (0.028s latency). Other addresses for sandbox.zaeta.net (not scanned): 2001:67c:750::24 rDNS record for 185.189.51.40: prime2.inleed.net
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 995/tcp open ssl/pop3 Dovecot DirectAdmin pop3d |_pop3-capabilities: UIDL SASL(PLAIN) CAPA RESP-CODES TOP USER AUTH-RESP-CODE PIPELINING
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 7.48 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the Post Office Protocol (POP3) service is publicly accessible and doesn’t include STARTTLS capability. Email clients use the Post Office Protocol (POP) to download emails for user accounts. Some POP servers are initially set up to operate over an unsecured protocol. When email clients download email content through this plaintext protocol, it can pose a substantial risk to the organization's network, especially depending on which user account is set to receive the emails.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks, thereby gaining access to sensitive user credentials and the contents of emails. Given that POP3 operates via a plaintext protocol, the entirety of the data exchanged between the client and server is left unencrypted. This critical information could then be leveraged in further attacks on the organization's network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off POP3 access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the POP3 service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, activating STARTTLS capability (switching the connection to a secure communication) or utilizing Secure POP3 (POP3S) is recommended, as this protocol employs encryption.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp Pure-FTPd
Vulnerability description
We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| sandbox.zaeta.net | A | IPv4 address | 185.189.51.40 |
| sandbox.zaeta.net | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2001:67c:750::24 |
Risk description
An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.
Recommendation
We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 4.4 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
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.