Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | LinkedIn : sâidentifier ou sâinscrire |
| Description: | 1 milliard de membres | Gérez votre image professionnelle. Constituez votre réseau professionnel et communiquez avec celui-ci. Gagnez des connaissances, accédez à des idées et des opportunités. |
| ip_address | 13.107.246.64 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Microsoft Corporation |
| asn | AS8075 |
| ip_address | 13.107.213.64 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Microsoft Corporation |
| asn | AS8075 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Azure | PaaS |
| Azure Front Door | Load balancers |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Java | Programming languages |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| HSTS | Security |
| JSP | Web frameworks |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://fr.linkedin.com/directory/posts | trkCode, trkInfo, rtc | Set-Cookie: trkCode=bf Set-Cookie: trkInfo=AQFkbGfv21CaYwAAAZrlvWzgPsrWLUizj0Dwi5PdtpSJbufvQGbN42XaAK0tN9AJlQRgIEezvaCdDMIhbJW5Tyc_LCT8DARFOekr5MJ9tDOSmysr1kQhflcKddX89tJ3PvCN04A= Set-Cookie: rtc=AQEtCleMNGW0kwAAAZrlvWzgzpOt-aOHqlR9QYRrtoED0sRtxe_LkIPKwVr9HRcl8lTxEBfHpSqe11OVTmswvaZn-qTsn5wMhN2SRWjDeTadKrCTfzk2E8iJxm2RdXnVl8mkZAASc5RXDhv0xhlC55jsAQV-nAk0brFBMLNZHGb5qS-7hlN-e6AXbnC9AetZCAj3qrOLkDzeDj75ZV0rpsyt_5zugvftsHLB3qUCUA== |
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://fr.linkedin.com/ | JSESSIONID | Set-Cookie: .fr.linkedin.com |
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://fr.linkedin.com/ | JSESSIONID, lang, bcookie, li_gc, lidc | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=ajax:2058212251377692963 Set-Cookie: lang=v=2⟨=fr-fr Set-Cookie: bcookie="v=2&db4635cd-12f0-4526-81a1-7f5451dfa293" Set-Cookie: li_gc=MTswOzE3NjQ3OTA5Nzg7MjswMjEe7+UQjRRG7QbrufT2NurLm5km5cy5rhUpl+iMKArulg== Set-Cookie: lidc="b=VGST00:s=V:r=V:a=V:p=V:g=3797:u=1:x=1:i=1764790978:t=1764877378:v=2:sig=AQEnWywL1jydzTA_P5TRjVRmCs6vrFnj" |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1004 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://fr.linkedin.com/directory/posts | 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://fr.linkedin.com/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://fr.linkedin.com/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Azure | PaaS |
| Azure Front Door | Load balancers |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Java | Programming languages |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| HSTS | Security |
| JSP | Web frameworks |
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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://fr.linkedin.com/directory/posts | Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.
Recommendation
We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://fr.linkedin.com/directory/posts | 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).
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Java | Programming languages |
| JSP | Web frameworks |
| Azure Front Door | Load balancers |
| Azure | PaaS |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| HSTS | Security |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Java | Programming languages |
| JSP | Web frameworks |
| Azure Front Door | Load balancers |
| Azure | PaaS |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| HSTS | Security |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| fr.linkedin.com | A | IPv4 address | 13.107.246.64 |
| fr.linkedin.com | A | IPv4 address | 13.107.213.64 |
| fr.linkedin.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2620:1ec:bdf::64 |
| fr.linkedin.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2620:1ec:46::64 |
| fr.linkedin.com | CNAME | Canonical name | cctld.linkedin.com |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 87% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection