Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Telegram: View @nbu_ua |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 149.154.167.99 |
| Country | GB  |
| AS number | AS62041 |
| Net name | Telegram Messenger Inc |
80/tcp | http | nginx 1.18.0 |
443/tcp | https | nginx 1.18.0 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Nginx 1.18.0 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Paper.js | JavaScript graphics |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVE-2022-41741 | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to corrupt NGINX worker memory, resulting in its termination or potential other impact using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. | nginx 1.18.0 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-44487 | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. | nginx 1.18.0 | |
| 7.1 | CVE-2022-41742 | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to cause a worker process crash, or might result in worker process memory disclosure by using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the module ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. | nginx 1.18.0 | |
| 6.8 | CVE-2021-23017 | A security issue in nginx resolver was identified, which might allow an attacker who is able to forge UDP packets from the DNS server to cause 1-byte memory overwrite, resulting in worker process crash or potential other impact. | nginx 1.18.0 | |
| 5.8 | CVE-2021-3618 | ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer. | nginx 1.18.0 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
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.
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-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://t.me/nbu_ua/3052 | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://t.me/nbu_ua/3052 | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.
Risk description
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.
Recommendation
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://t.me/nbu_ua/3052 | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Nginx 1.18.0 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Paper.js | JavaScript graphics |
| 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.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.8 | CVE-2022-41741 | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to corrupt NGINX worker memory, resulting in its termination or potential other impact using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-44487 | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. | |
| 7.1 | CVE-2022-41742 | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to cause a worker process crash, or might result in worker process memory disclosure by using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the module ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. | |
| 6.8 | CVE-2021-23017 | A security issue in nginx resolver was identified, which might allow an attacker who is able to forge UDP packets from the DNS server to cause 1-byte memory overwrite, resulting in worker process crash or potential other impact. | |
| 5.8 | CVE-2021-3618 | ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nginx 1.18.0
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.;
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.t.me | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s" |
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.t.me | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s" |
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 Nginx has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.18.0 End-of-life date: 2021-04-20 Latest version for the cycle: 1.18.0 This release cycle (1.18) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2020-04-21 and its latest release date was 2020-04-21.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| t.me | A | IPv4 address | 149.154.167.99 |
| t.me | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b4.googledomains.com |
| t.me | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b2.googledomains.com |
| t.me | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com |
| t.me | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b3.googledomains.com |
| t.me | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com. dns.jomax.net.t.me. 2017053102 28800 7200 604800 600 |
| t.me | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2001:67c:4e8:f004::9 |
| t.me | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
| _dmarc.t.me | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;sp=reject;adkim=s;aspf=s" |
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
Vulnerability description
OS detection couldn't determine the operating system.
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| t.me | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Paper.js | JavaScript graphics |
| Nginx 1.18.0 | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| 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.