Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Welcome :: Damn Vulnerable Web Application (DVWA) |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 178.79.134.182 |
| country | GB  |
| network_name | Akamai |
| asn | AS63949 |
80/tcp | http | nginx 1.29.8 |
81/tcp | https | nginx 1.29.8 |
443/tcp | https | nginx 1.29.8 |
4280/tcp | https | nginx 1.29.8 |
4445/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 8.4p1 Debian 5+deb11u6 |
5013/tcp | https | nginx 1.29.8 |
6379/tcp | redis | Redis key-value store 5.0.7 |
7001/tcp | https | Oracle WebLogic admin httpd - |
9000/tcp | https | nginx 1.29.8 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx 1.29.8 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP 8.5.6 | Programming languages |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://pentest-ground.com:4280/ | security, PHPSESSID | Set-Cookie: security=low Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=c685830a773ba9d7ac0d47732f9e5dc7 |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://pentest-ground.com:4280/ | security, PHPSESSID | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: security=low Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=c685830a773ba9d7ac0d47732f9e5dc7 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1004 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pentest-ground.com:4280/ | 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://pentest-ground.com:4280/ | 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://pentest-ground.com:4280/vulnerabilities/csp/ | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.
Risk description
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.
Recommendation
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx 1.29.8 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP 8.5.6 | Programming languages |
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://pentest-ground.com:4280/ | 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://pentest-ground.com:4280/vulnerabilities/csrf/ | 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: PHPSESSID=8efb1bdc0d3d6e59458f2075c13a69ec security=low | 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
| CWE | CWE-598 |
| 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://pentest-ground.com:4280/ | 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 |
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://pentest-ground.com:4280/setup.php | 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: PHPSESSID=8efb1bdc0d3d6e59458f2075c13a69ec security=low | Operating system paths found in the HTTP response: |
Vulnerability description
We found operating system paths returned in a HTTP response.
Risk description
The risk is that path disclosure may help an attacker learn more about the remote server's file system, thus increasing the effectiveness and precision of any future attacks.
Recommendation
Configure the web server to avoid leaking path information by using generic error messages that do not reveal any internal file paths. Make sure no server file is referred with its absolute path in the website code.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-49844 | 9.9 | 0.08498 | 0.92421 | No | Redis is an open source, in-memory database that persists on disk. Versions 8.2.1 and below allow an authenticated user to use a specially crafted Lua script to manipulate the garbage collector, trigger a use-after-free and potentially lead to remote code execution. The problem exists in all versions of Redis with Lua scripting. This issue is fixed in version 8.2.2. To workaround this issue without patching the redis-server executable is to prevent users from executing Lua scripts. This can be done using ACL to restrict EVAL and EVALSHA commands. |
| CVE-2026-25243 | 7.7 | 0.00094 | 0.25994 | No | Redis is an in-memory data structure store. In versions of redis-server up to 8.6.3, the RESTORE command does not properly validate serialized values. An authenticated attacker with permission to execute RESTORE can supply a crafted serialized payload that triggers invalid memory access and may lead to remote code execution. A workaround is to restrict access to the RESTORE command with ACL rules. This is patched in version 8.6.3. |
| CVE-2020-14147 | 7.7 | 0.00271 | 0.50506 | No | An integer overflow in the getnum function in lua_struct.c in Redis before 6.0.3 allows context-dependent attackers with permission to run Lua code in a Redis session to cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) or possibly bypass intended sandbox restrictions via a large number, which triggers a stack-based buffer overflow. NOTE: this issue exists because of a CVE-2015-8080 regression. |
| CVE-2025-48367 | 7.5 | 0.00457 | 0.64041 | No | Redis is an open source, in-memory database that persists on disk. An unauthenticated connection can cause repeated IP protocol errors, leading to client starvation and, ultimately, a denial of service. This vulnerability is fixed in 8.0.3, 7.4.5, 7.2.10, and 6.2.19. |
| CVE-2025-21605 | 7.5 | 0.01547 | 0.8155 | No | Redis is an open source, in-memory database that persists on disk. In versions starting at 2.6 and prior to 7.4.3, An unauthenticated client can cause unlimited growth of output buffers, until the server runs out of memory or is killed. By default, the Redis configuration does not limit the output buffer of normal clients (see client-output-buffer-limit). Therefore, the output buffer can grow unlimitedly over time. As a result, the service is exhausted and the memory is unavailable. When password authentication is enabled on the Redis server, but no password is provided, the client can still cause the output buffer to grow from "NOAUTH" responses until the system will run out of memory. This issue has been patched in version 7.4.3. An additional workaround to mitigate this problem without patching the redis-server executable is to block access to prevent unauthenticated users from connecting to Redis. This can be done in different ways. Either using network access control tools like firewalls, iptables, security groups, etc, or enabling TLS and requiring users to authenticate using client side certificates. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Redis Key-Value Store 5.0.7
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 Redis service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 6379/tcp open redis Redis key-value store 5.0.7
Vulnerability description
We found that the Redis service is publicly accessible. This service often holds critical organizational data, making it a potential prime target for determined attackers.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker exploits this issue by launching a password-based attack on the Redis service. If an attacker identifies a correct set of login details, they could gain access to the database and start enumerating, potentially revealing confidential information. Moreover, such vulnerabilities could lead to other forms of attacks, including privilege escalation, allowing attackers to run system commands and move laterally to other systems in the internal network.
Recommendation
We recommend ensuring that the Redis service is not publicly accessible. The Redis service should be safeguarded behind a firewall or made available only to users connected through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) server. However, if the Redis service is required to be directly accessible over the Internet, we recommend reconfiguring it such that it is accessible only from known IP addresses.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.439 | 0.97566 | Yes | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-11022 | 6.9 | 0.02391 | 0.85149 | No | In jQuery starting with 1.12.0 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 3.4.1
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
We managed to detect that redis has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.0.7 End-of-life date: 2022-04-27 Latest version for the cycle: 5.0.14 This release cycle (5.0) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2018-10-17 and its latest release date was 2021-10-04. The support ended on 2020-04-30.
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 4.15 - 5.6 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| pentest-ground.com | A | IPv4 address | 178.79.134.182 |
| pentest-ground.com | NS | Name server | ns2.linode.com |
| pentest-ground.com | NS | Name server | ns4.linode.com |
| pentest-ground.com | NS | Name server | ns3.linode.com |
| pentest-ground.com | NS | Name server | ns1.linode.com |
| pentest-ground.com | NS | Name server | ns5.linode.com |
| pentest-ground.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.pentest-ground.com |
| pentest-ground.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.linode.com. admin2.admin.test. 2021000183 14400 14400 1209600 86400 |
| pentest-ground.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=ZLVQ3p8ELtF-rDUOx1MkUHsZDQyEngBnxMFGC7CK6NE" |
| pentest-ground.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "letsencrypt.org" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Nginx 1.29.8 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
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 |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Nginx 1.29.8 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| cdnjs | 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 |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Tailwind CSS | UI frameworks |
| Nginx 1.29.8 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Unpkg | CDN |
| Tippy.js 6 | JavaScript libraries |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Fathom | Analytics |
| CookieYes | Cookie compliance |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Popper 2 | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Tailwind CSS | UI frameworks |
| Nginx 1.29.8 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Unpkg | CDN |
| Tippy.js 6 | JavaScript libraries |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Fathom | Analytics |
| Popper 2 | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP 8.5.6 | Programming languages |
| Nginx 1.29.8 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
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 |
|---|---|
| Java | Programming languages |
| JavaServer Pages | Web frameworks |
| Weblogic Server | 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.