Vulnerability Scan Result

| Title: | NZ Post |
| Description: | The New Zealand Post Group offers services to help New Zealand run. We connect people, businesses and communities. |
| ip_address | 52.223.2.172 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon Inc |
| asn | AS16509 |
7/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
13/tcp | daytime | - - |
20/tcp | ftp-data | - - |
22/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
26/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
43/tcp | whois | - - |
53/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
70/tcp | gopher | - - |
79/tcp | finger | - - |
80/tcp | http | awselb/2.0 - |
81/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
102/tcp | iso-tsap | - - |
106/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
111/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
144/tcp | news | - - |
179/tcp | bgp | - - |
199/tcp | smux | - - |
264/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
383/tcp | hp-alarm-mgr | - - |
411/tcp | rmt | - - |
443/tcp | https | awselb/2.0 - |
444/tcp | snpp | - - |
464/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
513/tcp | login | - - |
544/tcp | kshell | - - |
546/tcp | dhcpv6-client | - - |
548/tcp | afp | - - |
554/tcp | rtsp | - - |
596/tcp | smsd | - - |
631/tcp | ipp | - - |
639/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
860/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
873/tcp | rsync | - - |
902/tcp | iss-realsecure | - - |
990/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1025/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1026/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1029/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1080/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1110/tcp | nfsd-status | - - |
1214/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1241/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1311/tcp | rxmon | - - |
1723/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1741/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1755/tcp | wms | - - |
2000/tcp | cisco-sccp | - - |
2001/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2049/tcp | nfs | - - |
2080/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2082/tcp | infowave | - - |
2083/tcp | radsec | - - |
2086/tcp | gnunet | - - |
2087/tcp | eli | - - |
2100/tcp | amiganetfs | - - |
2484/tcp | ttc-ssl | - - |
2717/tcp | pn-requester | - - |
3306/tcp | mysql | - - |
3784/tcp | bfd-control | - - |
3986/tcp | mapper-ws_ethd | - - |
4444/tcp | krb524 | - - |
5000/tcp | upnp | - - |
5013/tcp | fmpro-v6 | - - |
5051/tcp | ida-agent | - - |
5060/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5190/tcp | aol | - - |
5222/tcp | xmpp-client | - - |
5223/tcp | hpvirtgrp | - - |
5666/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5800/tcp | vnc-http | - - |
5985/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6000/tcp | X11 | - - |
6379/tcp | redis | - - |
7001/tcp | afs3-callback | - - |
7070/tcp | realserver | - - |
7199/tcp | None | - - |
8081/tcp | blackice-icecap | - - |
9000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9100/tcp | jetdirect | - - |
9800/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10161/tcp | snmptls | - - |
19638/tcp | None | - - |
20000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49155/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Linkedin Ads | Advertising |
| Linkedin Insight Tag | Analytics |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.240 | Analytics |
| ZURB Foundation | UI frameworks |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| InMoment | Analytics, Surveys |
| jQuery 1.10.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.12.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Acquia Cloud Platform | PaaS |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Drupal | CMS |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| iGoDigital | Personalisation |
| HSTS | Security |
| Salesforce Interaction Studio | Personalisation, Segmentation |
| Thawte | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Varnish | Caching |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2021-41184 | 6.5 | 0.1876 | 0.9505 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `of` option of the `.position()` util from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `of` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `of` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41183 | 6.5 | 0.03979 | 0.87947 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of various `*Text` options of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. The values passed to various `*Text` options are now always treated as pure text, not HTML. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `*Text` options from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41182 | 6.5 | 0.29115 | 0.96379 | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `altField` option of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `altField` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `altField` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2022-31160 | 6.1 | 0.10456 | 0.92935 | jQuery UI is a curated set of user interface interactions, effects, widgets, and themes built on top of jQuery. Versions prior to 1.13.2 are potentially vulnerable to cross-site scripting. Initializing a checkboxradio widget on an input enclosed within a label makes that parent label contents considered as the input label. Calling `.checkboxradio( "refresh" )` on such a widget and the initial HTML contained encoded HTML entities will make them erroneously get decoded. This can lead to potentially executing JavaScript code. The bug has been patched in jQuery UI 1.13.2. To remediate the issue, someone who can change the initial HTML can wrap all the non-input contents of the `label` in a `span`. |
Vulnerability description
Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.
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-1035 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.27849 | 0.96262 | 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 | 0.30076 | 0.96466 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 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. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.0548 | 0.89807 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
| CVE-2015-9251 | 6.1 | 0.10091 | 0.92798 | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. |
Vulnerability description
Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.
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-1035 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.nzpost.co.nz/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Linkedin Ads | Advertising |
| Linkedin Insight Tag | Analytics |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.240 | Analytics |
| ZURB Foundation | UI frameworks |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| InMoment | Analytics, Surveys |
| jQuery 1.10.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI 1.12.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Acquia Cloud Platform | PaaS |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Drupal | CMS |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| iGoDigital | Personalisation |
| HSTS | Security |
| Salesforce Interaction Studio | Personalisation, Segmentation |
| Thawte | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Varnish | Caching |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
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
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).
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.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.nzpost.co.nz/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: 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-2021-41184 | 6.5 | 0.1876 | 0.9505 | No | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `of` option of the `.position()` util from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `of` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `of` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41183 | 6.5 | 0.03979 | 0.87947 | No | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of various `*Text` options of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. The values passed to various `*Text` options are now always treated as pure text, not HTML. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `*Text` options from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2021-41182 | 6.5 | 0.29115 | 0.96379 | No | jQuery-UI is the official jQuery user interface library. Prior to version 1.13.0, accepting the value of the `altField` option of the Datepicker widget from untrusted sources may execute untrusted code. The issue is fixed in jQuery UI 1.13.0. Any string value passed to the `altField` option is now treated as a CSS selector. A workaround is to not accept the value of the `altField` option from untrusted sources. |
| CVE-2022-31160 | 6.1 | 0.10456 | 0.92935 | No | jQuery UI is a curated set of user interface interactions, effects, widgets, and themes built on top of jQuery. Versions prior to 1.13.2 are potentially vulnerable to cross-site scripting. Initializing a checkboxradio widget on an input enclosed within a label makes that parent label contents considered as the input label. Calling `.checkboxradio( "refresh" )` on such a widget and the initial HTML contained encoded HTML entities will make them erroneously get decoded. This can lead to potentially executing JavaScript code. The bug has been patched in jQuery UI 1.13.2. To remediate the issue, someone who can change the initial HTML can wrap all the non-input contents of the `label` in a `span`. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery UI 1.12.1
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.27849 | 0.96262 | 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 | 0.30076 | 0.96466 | No | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 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. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.0548 | 0.89807 | No | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
| CVE-2015-9251 | 6.1 | 0.10091 | 0.92798 | No | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for jQuery 1.10.2
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 jQuery has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.10.2 Latest version for the cycle: 1.12.4 This release cycle (1) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2006-08-31 and its latest release date was 2016-05-20.
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.nzpost.co.nz | A | IPv4 address | 52.223.2.172 |
| www.nzpost.co.nz | CNAME | Canonical name | www-nzpost-co-nz.cdn.red-shield.net |
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 |
|---|---|
| Drupal | CMS |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Varnish | Caching |
| ZURB Foundation | UI frameworks |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Acquia Cloud Platform | PaaS |
| Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
| Linkedin Insight Tag | Analytics |
| Thawte | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Salesforce Interaction Studio | Personalisation, Segmentation |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| Linkedin Ads | Advertising |
| jQuery UI 1.12.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 1.10.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| iGoDigital | Personalisation |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.240 | Analytics |
| 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.
