Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | ××¦× ×× ×× — ××ש×ר ×ר×× ×××× - ××תר ×רש××, ×××××× ××ר××, צ××ר×× ××ר××, ××ר××¢×× ××ר×× |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 164.92.190.221 |
| country | DE  |
| network_name | DigitalOcean |
| asn | AS14061 |
21/tcp | ftp | ProFTPD - |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 8.2p1 Ubuntu 4ubuntu0.13 |
25/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
53/tcp | domain | - - |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
106/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
465/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
993/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
995/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
3306/tcp | mysql | MySQL 5.5.5-10.3.39-MariaDB-0ubuntu0.20.04.2 |
8443/tcp | https | sw-cp-server - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Ads | Advertising |
| Linkedin Insight Tag | Analytics |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.5 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.265 | Analytics |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Prism | Miscellaneous |
| Google Ads Conversion Tracking | Analytics |
| WordPress 6.9.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| Twenty Seventeen | WordPress themes |
| WPML 4.9.0 | WordPress plugins, Translation |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Yoast SEO 26.9 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-4900 | 6.2 | 0.00083 | 0.24183 | 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 | 0.04305 | 0.88627 | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://habsor.co.il/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://habsor.co.il/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Ads | Advertising |
| Linkedin Insight Tag | Analytics |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.5 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.265 | Analytics |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| lit-element 4.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Prism | Miscellaneous |
| Google Ads Conversion Tracking | Analytics |
| WordPress 6.9.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| Twenty Seventeen | WordPress themes |
| WPML 4.9.0 | WordPress plugins, Translation |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Yoast SEO 26.9 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
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
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://habsor.co.il/ | GET | Query: p=27001 Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 | Email Address: etzeldandan@gmail.com |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| 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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible MySQL service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 3306/tcp open mysql MySQL 5.5.5-10.3.39-MariaDB-0ubuntu0.20.04.2
Vulnerability description
We identified that the MySQL service is publicly accessible. MySQL serves as a common database for numerous web applications and services for data storage, 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 MySQL service. Furthermore, they could exploit zero-day vulnerabilities to obtain remote access to the MySQL database server, thereby gaining complete control over its operating system and associated services. Such an attack could lead to the exposure of confidential or sensitive information.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off public Internet access to MySQL and opting for a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that enforces two-factor authentication (2FA). Avoid enabling direct user authentication to the MySQL service via the Internet, as this could enable attackers to engage in password-guessing and potentially initiate attacks leading to complete control. However, if the MySQL service is required to be directly accessible over the Internet, we recommend reconfiguring it to be accessible only from known IP addresses.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-4900 | 6.2 | 0.00083 | 0.24183 | 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 | 0.04305 | 0.88627 | 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| habsor.co.il | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +mx +a +ip4:185.60.168.165 +ip4:164.92.190.221 ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service. Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2026-02-17 10:54 EET Nmap scan report for habsor.co.il (164.92.190.221) Host is up (0.017s latency).
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 995/tcp open ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d |_pop3-capabilities: CAPA PIPELINING RESP-CODES APOP USER TOP SASL(PLAIN LOGIN DIGEST-MD5 CRAM-MD5) AUTH-RESP-CODE UIDL Service Info: Host: plesk
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.59 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the Post Office Protocol (POP3) service is publicly accessible and doesn’t include STARTTLS capability. Email clients use the Post Office Protocol (POP) to download emails for user accounts. Some POP servers are initially set up to operate over an unsecured protocol. When email clients download email content through this plaintext protocol, it can pose a substantial risk to the organization's network, especially depending on which user account is set to receive the emails.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks, thereby gaining access to sensitive user credentials and the contents of emails. Given that POP3 operates via a plaintext protocol, the entirety of the data exchanged between the client and server is left unencrypted. This critical information could then be leveraged in further attacks on the organization's network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off POP3 access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the POP3 service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, activating STARTTLS capability (switching the connection to a secure communication) or utilizing Secure POP3 (POP3S) is recommended, as this protocol employs encryption.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
We managed to detect that MySQL has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.5.5-10.3.39-mariadb-0ubuntu0.20.04.2 End-of-life date: 2020-04-11 Latest version for the cycle: 5.5.68 This release cycle (5.5) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2012-04-11 and its latest release date was 2020-05-06.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target is configured with more than one DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) record in its DNS settings. According to the DMARC specification, only a single DMARC record is allowed per domain. When multiple DMARC records exist, email receivers may ignore the DMARC policy, leading to an improper application of email authentication and security checks. This misconfiguration weakens the domain’s email authentication stance, potentially allowing spoofed or fraudulent emails to bypass security checks. Such inconsistencies can lead to confusion for mail receivers on how to handle emails that fail SPF (Sender Policy Framework) and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) checks.
Risk description
When a domain has multiple DMARC records, email servers may not process the DMARC policy correctly, leading to confusion about how to handle emails that fail SPF and DKIM checks. This misconfiguration can be exploited by malicious actors to send spoofed or fraudulent emails that appear to come from the affected domain. As a result, organizations may face an increased risk of phishing attacks targeting employees or customers, potential damage to their reputation, and disruptions to the delivery of legitimate emails, as some mail servers may ignore the intended DMARC policy altogether.
Recommendation
To resolve the issue of multiple DMARC records, ensure that only one valid DMARC record is published in your domain's DNS. Remove any duplicate or conflicting entries and verify the configuration using tools like MXToolbox or DMARCian. Additionally, implement a strict DMARC policy such as p=reject or p=quarantine to ensure emails that fail SPF or DKIM checks are properly handled. If subdomains are in use, configure the sp tag appropriately. Enable DMARC reporting by setting up the rua and ruf tags to receive aggregate and forensic reports, which can help monitor for ongoing issues or abuse.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp ProFTPD
Vulnerability description
We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4RMJYjaxhxl+EOM7eAmMAqZKWlfguW2sHIK9N3z9ybdPmV7g5X50a7P6OVT9v2bK/tizSoTMBLEZTFBkOMJpcKJtZAubCQM6+eOHsD5c0HKKFyiTC828jfx8qdRKGIZR05HsNULkYh8pu31evD+cFahcAIEzh3bFDz/a1RSZutsudYGjwjcroiLNCR60YME4f" "6aZpfEFfLw6NTHR05tzDJh6Rc626lSUHVrX5nu52AGiyGXIl4hS02l+c2UGN2MnCTltMn/qkDGHh6/bvvQjoETuimrAHOSVRaxLPetaG/j8zHbLJtOvm2M4g4VVsIoKDBxY/ybtfUz1RWOmkUju5QIDAQAB;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.
Risk description
Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4RMJYjaxhxl+EOM7eAmMAqZKWlfguW2sHIK9N3z9ybdPmV7g5X50a7P6OVT9v2bK/tizSoTMBLEZTFBkOMJpcKJtZAubCQM6+eOHsD5c0HKKFyiTC828jfx8qdRKGIZR05HsNULkYh8pu31evD+cFahcAIEzh3bFDz/a1RSZutsudYGjwjcroiLNCR60YME4f" "6aZpfEFfLw6NTHR05tzDJh6Rc626lSUHVrX5nu52AGiyGXIl4hS02l+c2UGN2MnCTltMn/qkDGHh6/bvvQjoETuimrAHOSVRaxLPetaG/j8zHbLJtOvm2M4g4VVsIoKDBxY/ybtfUz1RWOmkUju5QIDAQAB;" |
| s1 | rsa | 1446 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA0wOxGJoXG8a6AP5L/QP+Jo9KrtoThUCOKoqBz43gshKLQLZOzQLS1Ayj6qrSKkieLhcHiaXRZv6fceMNdgfaIM4jiVgor9ihCZ/FwcCY7E+tFau5Pwlc9sofjOgbYpXxDWjHbDJumdvsOtOHYqYb0h2cI6WHpUbhGY2uKLk3fFrLGvJra9naC/y/V3Uj+KGVL1pRT" "yo4p983p5bZn2YBDLi4Q4HZ9P8AueivkQfC4q8p9mCIjM8rqXJGv3xIT0pJ5k2kLPVCXGDzDGVgfQNZQejFiT8VFroTliqI7pGkA8yfWP2DZEejl7V4iJPBAIomhkkq6Z6XrBEpXmC+2KdZ2wIDAQAB" |
| s2 | rsa | 1446 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEApqOkYOjHhKkZauWni7H7ceFkT4WMbbkbjWH6TsuOhM3k3E+u/Xr4Qr6nA9nV6QkxDjJJr5+hykZXeDN7UhkXuZzsaYs+d8ifASrgyfAZrJfDONeI91Bi0rowNCC9qQ46+NRxzD/rCDqvxGe0aP6hDOJhIXm6ETUCV00YPIp1hMM9jA1odcrGxOSq3m7Up+A4m7qFP" "LSEVeNlqLKo+dkFjlQogZdeWsjJWS4mlao1r1d8oCezslAU9MdhTJ7gMwi1q46a7Hpd+dLiyXO4xAoxFXTGvsq/85RFoxGe/TjQgtLJOA7l7vlZeHxkWFxJGtfdBnGukN300+rJ5Py02GwvIQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| habsor.co.il | A | IPv4 address | 164.92.190.221 |
| habsor.co.il | NS | Name server | park2.livedns.co.il |
| habsor.co.il | NS | Name server | park1.livedns.co.il |
| habsor.co.il | MX | Mail server | 0 mail.habsor.co.il |
| habsor.co.il | SOA | Start of Authority | park1.livedns.co.il. hostmaster.habsor.co.il. 2026020505 3600 600 1209600 14400 |
| habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none;" |
| habsor.co.il | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +mx +a +ip4:185.60.168.165 +ip4:164.92.190.221 ~all" |
| _dmarc.habsor.co.il | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
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 |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.9.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.5 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Twenty Seventeen | WordPress themes |
| Yoast SEO 26.9 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
| Google Ads | Advertising |
| WPML 4.9.0 | WordPress plugins, Translation |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| Linkedin Insight Tag | Analytics |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Ads Conversion Tracking | Analytics |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.265 | Analytics |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 5.0 - 5.4 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection