Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://highrisksecurity.nl/

Scanned target: https://highrisksecurity.nl/

Submitted: May 01, 2026 from IQ

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	High Risk Security – Voor als het echt veilig moet zijn
Description:	No description found

IP Information

ip_address	83.142.31.133
country	NL
network_name	PixelHosting
asn	AS215085

Open Ports

21/tcp	ftp	Pure-FTPd -
22/tcp	ssh	OpenSSH 8
25/tcp	smtp	- -
53/tcp	domain	PowerDNS Authoritative Server 4.9.5
80/tcp	http	- -
110/tcp	pop3	Dovecot pop3d -
143/tcp	imap	Dovecot imapd -
443/tcp	https	- -
465/tcp	smtp	Exim smtpd 4.99.1
587/tcp	smtp	Exim smtpd 4.99.1
993/tcp	imap	Dovecot imapd -
995/tcp	pop3	Dovecot pop3d -
2078/tcp	https	cPanel httpd -
2083/tcp	radsec	- -
2086/tcp	gnunet	- -
2087/tcp	eli	- -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
OpenResty 1.27.1.1	Web servers

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://highrisksecurity.nl/	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

Software / Version	Category
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
OpenResty 1.27.1.1	Web servers

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://highrisksecurity.nl/	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://highrisksecurity.nl/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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://highrisksecurity.nl/	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

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	CISA KEV	Summary
CVE-2026-33608	7.4	0.00007	0.00561	No	An attacker can send a notify request that causes a new secondary domain to be added to the bind backend, but causes said backend to update its configuration to an invalid one, leading to the backend no longer able to run on the next restart, requiring manual operation to fix it.
CVE-2026-33610	5.9	0.0002	0.05511	No	A rogue primary server may cause file descriptor exhaustion and eventually a denial of service, when a PowerDNS secondary server forwards a DNS update request to it.
CVE-2026-33609	5.3	0.00008	0.00805	No	Incomplete escaping of LDAP queries when running with 8bit-dns enabled allows users to perform queries of internal domain subtrees.
CVE-2026-33260	5.3	0.00012	0.016	No	An attacker can send a web request that causes unlimited memory allocation in the internal web server, leading to a denial of service. The internal web server is disabled by default.
CVE-2026-33257	5.3	0.00012	0.016	No	An attacker can send a web request that causes unlimited memory allocation in the internal web server, leading to a denial of service. The internal web server is disabled by default.

Vulnerability description

Vulnerabilities found for Powerdns Authoritative Server 4.9.5

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-2023-38408	9.8	0.64352	0.98459	No	The PKCS#11 feature in ssh-agent in OpenSSH before 9.3p2 has an insufficiently trustworthy search path, leading to remote code execution if an agent is forwarded to an attacker-controlled system. (Code in /usr/lib is not necessarily safe for loading into ssh-agent.) NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2016-10009.
CVE-2019-16905	7.8	0.00271	0.50493	No	OpenSSH 7.7 through 7.9 and 8.x before 8.1, when compiled with an experimental key type, has a pre-authentication integer overflow if a client or server is configured to use a crafted XMSS key. This leads to memory corruption and local code execution because of an error in the XMSS key parsing algorithm. NOTE: the XMSS implementation is considered experimental in all released OpenSSH versions, and there is no supported way to enable it when building portable OpenSSH.
CVE-2026-35385	7.5	0.00039	0.11507	No	In OpenSSH before 10.3, a file downloaded by scp may be installed setuid or setgid, an outcome contrary to some users' expectations, if the download is performed as root with -O (legacy scp protocol) and without -p (preserve mode).
CVE-2020-15778	7.4	0.61479	0.98339	No	scp in OpenSSH through 8.3p1 allows command injection in the scp.c toremote function, as demonstrated by backtick characters in the destination argument. NOTE: the vendor reportedly has stated that they intentionally omit validation of "anomalous argument transfers" because that could "stand a great chance of breaking existing workflows."
CVE-2021-41617	7	0.00274	0.50759	No	sshd in OpenSSH 6.2 through 8.x before 8.8, when certain non-default configurations are used, allows privilege escalation because supplemental groups are not initialized as expected. Helper programs for AuthorizedKeysCommand and AuthorizedPrincipalsCommand may run with privileges associated with group memberships of the sshd process, if the configuration specifies running the command as a different user.

Vulnerability description

Vulnerabilities found for Openssh 8.0

Risk description

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.highrisksecurity.nl	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 a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service. Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2026-05-01 17:52 EEST Nmap scan report for highrisksecurity.nl (83.142.31.133) Host is up (0.0087s latency). Other addresses for highrisksecurity.nl (not scanned): 2a06:9f41:a100:5:83:142:31:133 rDNS record for 83.142.31.133: da.ninepixels.nl

PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 995/tcp open ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d |_pop3-capabilities: TOP AUTH-RESP-CODE RESP-CODES SASL(PLAIN LOGIN) USER CAPA PIPELINING UIDL

Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.77 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.highrisksecurity.nl	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

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA8BuzsDPaPW6usmfelKdhKVdparqEn//V+ZMIT+lvafRv8LbfM3MJZFxoNAEO7rbBzyPBVsbTPcCyB9y4IT4lWk/xcu3lz47u9uXRYzJNgip7ubatsaCS7Uvtk5aAV+LWyjAmga70vzWU02WwpdzKUOOeLutZWbf9chG+A1p+blfSig5oDXuCEOq1uPe5IGv45" "U3+a2dv7HvVbQLjOCl+GlOSqk8TKx5Lc9FO3rcazzf+SJICXGda82H96GT5iB0otHSo+6UetQUnXcsFejLQzLiz7NgDhKra7N2ypNI1ZF1u1CoH/8fBhqkTbDf1MjeZ969pb/3AcdGjVoTM+fM0GQIDAQAB;"

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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.highrisksecurity.nl	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.highrisksecurity.nl	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

Software / Version	Category
Basic	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.

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
highrisksecurity.nl	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 ip4:83.142.31.133 include:_spf.ninepixels.nl +a +mx -all"

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
highrisksecurity.nl	A	IPv4 address	83.142.31.133
highrisksecurity.nl	NS	Name server	ns2.ninepixels.nl
highrisksecurity.nl	NS	Name server	ns1.ninepixels.nl
highrisksecurity.nl	MX	Mail server	0 highrisksecurity.nl
highrisksecurity.nl	SOA	Start of Authority	ns1.ninepixels.nl. info.pixelhosting.nl. 2026050101 3600 1800 1209600 86400
highrisksecurity.nl	AAAA	IPv6 address	2a06:9f41:a100:5:83:142:31:133
highrisksecurity.nl	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 ip4:83.142.31.133 include:_spf.ninepixels.nl +a +mx -all"
_dmarc.highrisksecurity.nl	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.

Operating System	Accuracy
Linux 4.4	94%

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA8BuzsDPaPW6usmfelKdhKVdparqEn//V+ZMIT+lvafRv8LbfM3MJZFxoNAEO7rbBzyPBVsbTPcCyB9y4IT4lWk/xcu3lz47u9uXRYzJNgip7ubatsaCS7Uvtk5aAV+LWyjAmga70vzWU02WwpdzKUOOeLutZWbf9chG+A1p+blfSig5oDXuCEOq1uPe5IGv45" "U3+a2dv7HvVbQLjOCl+GlOSqk8TKx5Lc9FO3rcazzf+SJICXGda82H96GT5iB0otHSo+6UetQUnXcsFejLQzLiz7NgDhKra7N2ypNI1ZF1u1CoH/8fBhqkTbDf1MjeZ969pb/3AcdGjVoTM+fM0GQIDAQAB;"