Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Helvetia Seguros | Seguros de hogar, moto, coche, decesos, vida... |
| Description: | Calcula el precio de tu seguro de decesos, moto, vida o responsabilidad civil para perros con Helvetia Seguros. Contrata online tu seguro a medida. |
| ip_address | 45.60.123.21 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Incapsula Inc |
| asn | AS19551 |
21/tcp | ftp | - - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
37/tcp | time | - - |
43/tcp | whois | - - |
53/tcp | domain | - - |
80/tcp | https | - - |
81/tcp | hosts2-ns | - - |
88/tcp | kerberos-sec | - - |
110/tcp | pop3 | - - |
119/tcp | nntp | - - |
135/tcp | msrpc | - - |
139/tcp | netbios-ssn | - - |
143/tcp | imap | - - |
389/tcp | ldap | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
444/tcp | snpp | - - |
465/tcp | smtps | - - |
514/tcp | shell | - - |
543/tcp | klogin | - - |
554/tcp | rtsp | - - |
587/tcp | submission | - - |
631/tcp | ipp | - - |
990/tcp | ftps | - - |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
1025/tcp | NFS-or-IIS | - - |
1028/tcp | other | - - |
1029/tcp | ms-lsa | - - |
1080/tcp | socks | - - |
1194/tcp | openvpn | - - |
1337/tcp | waste | - - |
1433/tcp | ms-sql-s | - - |
1701/tcp | l2f | - - |
1720/tcp | h323q931 | - - |
2000/tcp | cisco-sccp | - - |
2001/tcp | dc | - - |
2002/tcp | globe | - - |
2049/tcp | nfs | - - |
2078/tcp | tpcsrvr | - - |
2080/tcp | autodesk-nlm | - - |
2082/tcp | infowave | - - |
2083/tcp | radsec | - - |
2086/tcp | gnunet | - - |
2087/tcp | eli | - - |
2100/tcp | amiganetfs | - - |
2121/tcp | ccproxy-ftp | - - |
2222/tcp | EtherNetIP-1 | - - |
2967/tcp | symantec-av | - - |
3000/tcp | ppp | - - |
3050/tcp | gds_db | - - |
3306/tcp | mysql | - - |
3389/tcp | ms-wbt-server | - - |
3690/tcp | svn | - - |
4280/tcp | vrml-multi-use | - - |
4333/tcp | msql | - - |
4444/tcp | krb524 | - - |
4445/tcp | upnotifyp | - - |
5000/tcp | upnp | - - |
5004/tcp | avt-profile-1 | - - |
5005/tcp | avt-profile-2 | - - |
5009/tcp | airport-admin | - - |
5051/tcp | ida-agent | - - |
5060/tcp | sip | - - |
5222/tcp | xmpp-client | - - |
5223/tcp | hpvirtgrp | - - |
5631/tcp | pcanywheredata | - - |
5800/tcp | vnc-http | - - |
5900/tcp | vnc | - - |
5901/tcp | vnc-1 | - - |
5985/tcp | wsman | - - |
5986/tcp | wsmans | - - |
6000/tcp | X11 | - - |
6001/tcp | X11:1 | - - |
6379/tcp | redis | - - |
6699/tcp | napster | - - |
7000/tcp | afs3-fileserver | - - |
7001/tcp | afs3-callback | - - |
7070/tcp | realserver | - - |
8000/tcp | https | - - |
8008/tcp | https | - - |
8009/tcp | ajp13 | - - |
8080/tcp | https | - - |
8081/tcp | blackice-icecap | - - |
8200/tcp | trivnet1 | - - |
8222/tcp | other | - - |
8443/tcp | https-alt | - - |
8500/tcp | fmtp | - - |
8888/tcp | sun-answerbook | - - |
9000/tcp | cslistener | - - |
9042/tcp | other | - - |
9100/tcp | jetdirect | - - |
9800/tcp | davsrc | - - |
9999/tcp | abyss | - - |
10000/tcp | snet-sensor-mgmt | - - |
20000/tcp | dnp | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.319 | Analytics |
| Friendly Captcha 0.9.6 | Security |
| Quicklink | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| LazySizes | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Palo Alto Networks Expedition | Control systems |
| MinIO | Network storage |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Polyfill 3 | JavaScript libraries |
| ShareThis | Widgets |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Unpkg | CDN |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Drupal 9 | CMS |
| Dynatrace | Analytics |
| Dynatrace RUM | RUM |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Imperva | Security, CDN |
| Strava | Widgets |
| Varnish 5.0 | Caching |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-55638 | 9.8 | 0.09932 | 0.93103 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 7.0 before 7.102, from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55637 | 9.8 | 0.09982 | 0.93129 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55636 | 9.8 | 0.11473 | 0.93687 | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so called gadget chain presents no direct threat, but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2020-13665 | 9.8 | 0.00581 | 0.69153 | Access bypass vulnerability in Drupal Core allows JSON:API when JSON:API is in read/write mode. Only sites that have the read_only set to FALSE under jsonapi.settings config are vulnerable. This issue affects: Drupal Drupal Core 8.8.x versions prior to 8.8.8; 8.9.x versions prior to 8.9.1; 9.0.x versions prior to 9.0.1. |
| CVE-2020-13671 | 8.8 | 0.04504 | 0.89233 | Drupal core does not properly sanitize certain filenames on uploaded files, which can lead to files being interpreted as the incorrect extension and served as the wrong MIME type or executed as PHP for certain hosting configurations. This issue affects: Drupal Drupal Core 9.0 versions prior to 9.0.8, 8.9 versions prior to 8.9.9, 8.8 versions prior to 8.8.11, and 7 versions prior to 7.74. |
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-2024-3566 | 9.8 | 0.09605 | 0.9296 | A command inject vulnerability allows an attacker to perform command injection on Windows applications that indirectly depend on the CreateProcess function when the specific conditions are satisfied. |
| CVE-2022-4900 | 6.2 | 0.00065 | 0.2012 | A vulnerability was found in PHP where setting the environment variable PHP_CLI_SERVER_WORKERS to a large value leads to a heap buffer overflow. |
| CVE-2024-5458 | 5.3 | 0.03579 | 0.87863 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.helvetia.es/ | dtCookie, visid_incap_3270718, incap_ses_649_3270718 | Set-Cookie: dtCookie=v_4_srv_11_sn_D4370F41CB48366DD4A6FAFAF1AB96B7_perc_100000_ol_0_mul_1_app-3A7e2d08f8f2b6133d_1 Set-Cookie: visid_incap_3270718=l9doZ7ypSdSwCwbX20xUs8fECmoAAAAAQUIPAAAAAAAnCSyBZhWa4Mljd8Z+9yUu Set-Cookie: incap_ses_649_3270718=06UxfW90fSAJXjG9HbYBCcnECmoAAAAA+9WLXIDf7Csh1PaQ/FnnPQ== |
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://www.helvetia.es/ | dtCookie | Set-Cookie: .helvetia.es |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application sets cookies with a domain scope that is too broad. Specifically, cookies intended for use within a particular application are configured in such a way that they can be accessed by multiple subdomains of the same primary domain.
Risk description
The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com, hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from the main site.
Recommendation
The `Domain` attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to `Domain=app.mysite.com`
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.helvetia.es/ | dtCookie, incap_ses_649_3270718 | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: dtCookie=v_4_srv_11_sn_D4370F41CB48366DD4A6FAFAF1AB96B7_perc_100000_ol_0_mul_1_app-3A7e2d08f8f2b6133d_1 Set-Cookie: incap_ses_649_3270718=06UxfW90fSAJXjG9HbYBCcnECmoAAAAA+9WLXIDf7Csh1PaQ/FnnPQ== |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.319 | Analytics |
| Friendly Captcha 0.9.6 | Security |
| Quicklink | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| LazySizes | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Palo Alto Networks Expedition | Control systems |
| MinIO | Network storage |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Polyfill 3 | JavaScript libraries |
| ShareThis | Widgets |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| Unpkg | CDN |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Drupal 9 | CMS |
| Dynatrace | Analytics |
| Dynatrace RUM | RUM |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Imperva | Security, CDN |
| Strava | Widgets |
| Varnish 5.0 | Caching |
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://www.helvetia.es/ | 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://www.helvetia.es/ | 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://www.helvetia.es/ | 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
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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.helvetia.es/noticias/la-camiseta-del-helvetia-balonmano-montequinto-puede-ser-tuya | 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: dtCookie=v_4_srv_5_sn_F16484437E3D35329A1EB7619BFD63E3_perc_100000_ol_0_mul_1_app-3A7e2d08f8f2b6133d_1 incap_ses_649_3270718=NPpAI2ZxjVQJXjG9H... | Email Address: comunicacion@helvetia.es delegadoprotecciondatos@helvetia.es |
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 | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.helvetia.es/ | 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-2024-3566 | 9.8 | 0.09605 | 0.9296 | No | A command inject vulnerability allows an attacker to perform command injection on Windows applications that indirectly depend on the CreateProcess function when the specific conditions are satisfied. |
| CVE-2022-4900 | 6.2 | 0.00065 | 0.2012 | No | A vulnerability was found in PHP where setting the environment variable PHP_CLI_SERVER_WORKERS to a large value leads to a heap buffer overflow. |
| CVE-2024-5458 | 5.3 | 0.03579 | 0.87863 | No | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 7.4.33
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-2024-55638 | 9.8 | 0.09932 | 0.93103 | No | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 7.0 before 7.102, from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55637 | 9.8 | 0.09982 | 0.93129 | No | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so-called gadget chain presents no direct threat but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2024-55636 | 9.8 | 0.11473 | 0.93687 | No | Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Drupal Core allows Object Injection.This issue affects Drupal Core: from 8.0.0 before 10.2.11, from 10.3.0 before 10.3.9, from 11.0.0 before 11.0.8. Drupal core contains a chain of methods that is exploitable when an insecure deserialization vulnerability exists on the site. This so called gadget chain presents no direct threat, but is a vector that can be used to achieve remote code execution if the application deserializes untrusted data due to another vulnerability. |
| CVE-2020-13665 | 9.8 | 0.00581 | 0.69153 | No | Access bypass vulnerability in Drupal Core allows JSON:API when JSON:API is in read/write mode. Only sites that have the read_only set to FALSE under jsonapi.settings config are vulnerable. This issue affects: Drupal Drupal Core 8.8.x versions prior to 8.8.8; 8.9.x versions prior to 8.9.1; 9.0.x versions prior to 9.0.1. |
| CVE-2020-13671 | 8.8 | 0.04504 | 0.89233 | Yes | Drupal core does not properly sanitize certain filenames on uploaded files, which can lead to files being interpreted as the incorrect extension and served as the wrong MIME type or executed as PHP for certain hosting configurations. This issue affects: Drupal Drupal Core 9.0 versions prior to 9.0.8, 8.9 versions prior to 8.9.9, 8.8 versions prior to 8.8.11, and 7 versions prior to 7.74. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Drupal 9
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 Virtual Network Computing (VNC) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 5800/tcp open vnc-http
Vulnerability description
We found that the Virtual Network Computing (VNC) service is publicly accessible. VNC, widely used for remote desktop access, enables users to remotely view and interact with a computer's desktop environment. This capability makes it a prime target for attackers.
Risk description
The risk exists that by exploiting this service, an attacker could launch an authentication attack that can lead to unauthorized access and control over network resources.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off VNC access over the public Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the VNC service is essential for business purposes, limiting access to designated IP addresses is recommended.
Evidence
We managed to detect that Drupal has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 9 End-of-life date: 2021-06-16 Latest version for the cycle: 9.0.14 This release cycle (9.0) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2020-06-03 and its latest release date was 2021-05-25. The support ended on 2020-12-02.
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
We managed to detect that PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 7.4.33 End-of-life date: 2022-11-28 Latest version for the cycle: 7.4.33 This release cycle (7.4) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2019-11-28 and its latest release date was 2022-11-03. The support ended on 2021-11-28.
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, CDN |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
| Drupal 9 | CMS |
| Palo Alto Networks Expedition | Control systems |
| MinIO | Network storage |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Varnish 5.0 | Caching |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| Dynatrace | Analytics |
| ShareThis | Widgets |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.319 | Analytics |
| Dynatrace RUM | RUM |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Friendly Captcha 0.9.6 | Security |
| Strava | Widgets |
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, CDN |
| 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Windows | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.helvetia.es | A | IPv4 address | 45.60.123.21 |
| www.helvetia.es | CNAME | Canonical name | g5b3qqf.ng.impervadns.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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, 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 |
|---|---|
| Imperva | Security, CDN |
| 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.