Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://all-digital.gr/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://all-digital.gr/

Submitted: May 13, 2026 from KZ

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Screenshot could not be taken.

Title:	Αρχική - All Digital
Description:	Ολοκληρωμένες Συμβουλευτικές & Ψηφιακές Υπηρεσίες για την Επιχείρησή σας.

IP Information

ip_address	104.21.82.229
country	-
network_name	Cloudflare, Inc.
asn	AS13335

ip_address	172.67.207.235
country	-
network_name	Cloudflare, Inc.
asn	AS13335

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
443/tcp	https	cloudflare -
2082/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
2083/tcp	https	nginx -
2086/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
2087/tcp	https	nginx -
8080/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
8443/tcp	https-alt	cloudflare -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Google Analytics	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
MySQL	Databases
PHP	Programming languages
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
WordPress 2.5	CMS, Blogs
Cloudflare	CDN
reCAPTCHA	Security
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Joomla 1.5	CMS

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	Summary
CVE-2012-2400	10	0.01738	0.8268	Unspecified vulnerability in wp-includes/js/swfobject.js in WordPress before 3.3.2 has unknown impact and attack vectors.
CVE-2012-2399	10	0.0427	0.88926	Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in swfupload.swf in SWFupload 2.2.0.1 and earlier, as used in WordPress before 3.5.2, TinyMCE Image Manager 1.1 and earlier, and other products allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the buttonText parameter, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-3414.
CVE-2009-2853	10	0.01198	0.79071	Wordpress before 2.8.3 allows remote attackers to gain privileges via a direct request to (1) admin-footer.php, (2) edit-category-form.php, (3) edit-form-advanced.php, (4) edit-form-comment.php, (5) edit-link-category-form.php, (6) edit-link-form.php, (7) edit-page-form.php, and (8) edit-tag-form.php in wp-admin/.
CVE-2008-4796	10	0.0109	0.78121	The _httpsrequest function (Snoopy/Snoopy.class.php) in Snoopy 1.2.3 and earlier, as used in (1) ampache, (2) libphp-snoopy, (3) mahara, (4) mediamate, (5) opendb, (6) pixelpost, and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in https URLs.
CVE-2008-4769	9.3	0.1766	0.95171	Directory traversal vulnerability in the get_category_template function in wp-includes/theme.php in WordPress 2.3.3 and earlier, and 2.5, allows remote attackers to include and possibly execute arbitrary PHP files via the cat parameter in index.php. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information.

Vulnerability description

Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed 'high' severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.

Recommendation

In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1035
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

CVE	CVSS	EPSS Score	EPSS Percentile	Summary
CVE-2008-3225	10	0.00009	0.00876	Joomla! before 1.5.4 allows attackers to access administration functionality, which has unknown impact and attack vectors related to a missing "LDAP security fix."
CVE-2009-3215	7.5	0.0032	0.55153	SQL injection vulnerability in IXXO Cart Standalone before 3.9.6.1, and the IXXO Cart component for Joomla! 1.0.x, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the parent parameter.
CVE-2008-4105	7.5	0.00209	0.43173	JRequest in Joomla! 1.5 before 1.5.7 does not sanitize variables that were set with JRequest::setVar, which allows remote attackers to conduct "variable injection" attacks and have unspecified other impact.
CVE-2008-4102	7.5	0.00081	0.23713	Joomla! 1.5 before 1.5.7 initializes PHP's PRNG with a weak seed, which makes it easier for attackers to guess the pseudo-random values produced by PHP's mt_rand function, as demonstrated by guessing password reset tokens, a different vulnerability than CVE-2008-3681.
CVE-2008-3228	7.5	0.00078	0.23082	Joomla! before 1.5.4 does not configure .htaccess to apply certain security checks that "block common exploits" to SEF URLs, which has unknown impact and remote attack vectors.

Vulnerability description

Risk description

Recommendation

In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1035
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://all-digital.gr/wp-content/uploads	bn_challenge_session	Set-Cookie: bn_challenge_session=a26e39bf7d464ddef3a108a35c6c2407

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	Evidence
https://all-digital.gr/	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://all-digital.gr/	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
Google Analytics	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
MySQL	Databases
PHP	Programming languages
DoubleClick Floodlight	Advertising
WordPress 2.5	CMS, Blogs
Cloudflare	CDN
reCAPTCHA	Security
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Joomla 1.5	CMS

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://all-digital.gr/	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

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://all-digital.gr/xmlrpc.php	GET	Query: rsd= 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	Suspicious comment admin found in: `rs Tests/ </a><br> <a href='index.php?option=phpmyadmin'>This contact form is about /components/phpmyadmi`

Vulnerability description

We have discovered that the target application's code contains suspicious comments that may be related to potential bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses. These comments often arise during development and testing phases but are inadvertently left in the code.

Risk description

The risk exists that attackers could analyze these comments to identify vulnerabilities or weaknesses in the application. While comments themselves do not directly lead to security breaches, they may guide attackers to focus their efforts on specific parts of the application, potentially uncovering and exploiting vulnerabilities.

Recommendation

Remove comments that suggest the presence of bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses, before deploying the application.

Classification

CWE	CWE-546
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://all-digital.gr/	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
https://all-digital.gr/robots.txt

Vulnerability description

We found the robots.txt on the target server. This file instructs web crawlers what URLs and endpoints of the web application they can visit and crawl. Website administrators often misuse this file while attempting to hide some web pages from the users.

Risk description

There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.

Recommendation

We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website (ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://all-digital.gr/.well-known/security.txt

Vulnerability description

We have noticed that the server is missing the security.txt file, which is considered a good practice for web security. It provides a standardized way for security researchers and the public to report security vulnerabilities or concerns by outlining the preferred method of contact and reporting procedures.

Risk description

There is no particular risk in not having a security.txt file for your server. However, this file is important because it offers a designated channel for reporting vulnerabilities and security issues.

Recommendation

We recommend you to implement the security.txt file according to the standard, in order to allow researchers or users report any security issues they find, improving the defensive mechanisms of your server.

Classification

CWE	CWE-1188
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.all-digital.gr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s"

Vulnerability description

We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.

Risk description

While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.

Recommendation

We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
all-digital.gr	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 a mx ip4:148.251.206.242 ~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.all-digital.gr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; 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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.all-digital.gr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; aspf=s"

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.all-digital.gr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; 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.

Operating System	Accuracy
Android 6.0 - 7.1.2 (Linux 3.18 - 4.4.1)	87%

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

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
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

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
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

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
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

Vulnerability description

We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.

Recommendation

We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
WordPress 6.9.4	CMS, Blogs
MySQL	Databases
PHP	Programming languages
LiteSpeed	Web servers
Unpkg	CDN
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

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
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

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

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
x	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv9JEKOkbsQ4Wwx87pTYcaeXlrCkmLOd8kUwOXOeIGDO1mEkxgfZZtbijRgXX74JvRRkv2gGx+19hQZVUZHLh5R0ls65zhpOfIhRIQrAyznIKtOVR7QZwiKeyCMzKTbGCHEd39MZ91jb+5PGC3H35LtUwvslYeSttdzP8gmyuc4fvGbYVUfIM1rfec76yqoert" "jf4SYotGi3HixXVpS22F1QsQnU/FzHtxy3/FS5LHlQ1UejkTFUvJBpS55VkWm+moUO6TghcMtaKmkDEnoJzvZ8NPtWHzlb+laJulSBhD9a8z9T7FRWSRCzG23JcgO1JA8uAOIJ6wLNQbnDL5AJnpQIDAQAB"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous

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
all-digital.gr	A	IPv4 address	172.67.207.235
all-digital.gr	A	IPv4 address	104.21.82.229
all-digital.gr	NS	Name server	adrian.ns.cloudflare.com
all-digital.gr	NS	Name server	sergi.ns.cloudflare.com
all-digital.gr	MX	Mail server	10 mail.all-digital.gr
all-digital.gr	SOA	Start of Authority	adrian.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2399715341 10000 2400 604800 1800
all-digital.gr	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::ac43:cfeb
all-digital.gr	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3031::6815:52e5
all-digital.gr	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 a mx ip4:148.251.206.242 ~all"
_dmarc.all-digital.gr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; 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.