Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | GRUPO TORGO | Movilidad eléctrica sostenible |
| Description: | Transformando la industria de la movilidad eléctrica a través de la innovación tecnológica, la sostenibilidad y la implantación de sistemas de recarga de vehículos enchufables. |
| ip_address | 178.211.133.46 |
| country | ES  |
| network_name | Raiola Networks S.L. |
| asn | AS56958 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
80/tcp | http | OpenResty web app server 1.29.2.3 |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | OpenResty web app server 1.29.2.3 |
465/tcp | smtp | - - |
587/tcp | smtp | - - |
993/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
995/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
2078/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2080/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2082/tcp | http | OpenResty web app server 1.29.2.3 |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | OpenResty web app server 1.29.2.3 |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Contact Form 7 5.9.8 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap 5.0.1 | UI frameworks |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.39.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WooCommerce | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| WordPress Block Editor | Page builders |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Moove GDPR Consent | Cookie compliance, WordPress plugins |
| HSTS | Security |
| W3 Total Cache | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Yoast SEO 23.2 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://torgocorporate.com/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://torgocorporate.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
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Contact Form 7 5.9.8 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap 5.0.1 | UI frameworks |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.39.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Maps | Maps |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WooCommerce | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| WordPress Block Editor | Page builders |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| jsDelivr | CDN |
| Moove GDPR Consent | Cookie compliance, WordPress plugins |
| HSTS | Security |
| W3 Total Cache | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Yoast SEO 23.2 | 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.
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.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1188 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://torgocorporate.com/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: OPTIONS,HEAD,GET,POST` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-16 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://torgocorporate.com/ | GET | 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: info@torgocorporate.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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: dns1.raiolanetworks.es, dns3.raiolanetworks.es, dns2.raiolanetworks.es
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp Pure-FTPd
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
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service. Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2026-05-02 22:15 EEST Nmap scan report for torgocorporate.com (178.211.133.46) Host is up (0.023s latency). Other addresses for torgocorporate.com (not scanned): 2a12:d280:100:46:: rDNS record for 178.211.133.46: ha1010.raiolanetworks.es
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 995/tcp open ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d |_pop3-capabilities: SASL(PLAIN LOGIN) CAPA USER AUTH-RESP-CODE UIDL PIPELINING TOP RESP-CODES
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ . Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 7.27 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.torgocorporate.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=quarantine; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400;rua=mailto:dmarc@torgocorporate.com" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAtgGFnMd/2aAmsJwb3Y3dGaMgVFkyktNL5zlgSRmD4GOtQHDRtGflIcdUB4xAQrze86l/7jbIWVGSOofYkXS+QvorZNVSbIcy1C4pIHgqR5jh9d2KUgq4zo2VUHMyPUfbPIJkrBv4oggbL9frYI5gSAJiwr0w98pesx51VpdbJ/CmjmarV25Vmql+bNuj+CM2l" "9GYpjpd2ide5ZgYfdw+k5xD+QXXoFpYndM04Cl2WsZUqS0Q5hcd/wNIfDnKUipCzmwdiqT8K0DcwjoNV4J74+77RZdqTJnWyFO0Jf5DtQ90tvWYky+O8B1e7Lmsn/IUiqCH2UiM9oBWiHJFJ1OvxwIDAQAB;" |
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.torgocorporate.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=quarantine; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400;rua=mailto:dmarc@torgocorporate.com" |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.29.2.3 | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.29.2.3 | 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.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAtgGFnMd/2aAmsJwb3Y3dGaMgVFkyktNL5zlgSRmD4GOtQHDRtGflIcdUB4xAQrze86l/7jbIWVGSOofYkXS+QvorZNVSbIcy1C4pIHgqR5jh9d2KUgq4zo2VUHMyPUfbPIJkrBv4oggbL9frYI5gSAJiwr0w98pesx51VpdbJ/CmjmarV25Vmql+bNuj+CM2l" "9GYpjpd2ide5ZgYfdw+k5xD+QXXoFpYndM04Cl2WsZUqS0Q5hcd/wNIfDnKUipCzmwdiqT8K0DcwjoNV4J74+77RZdqTJnWyFO0Jf5DtQ90tvWYky+O8B1e7Lmsn/IUiqCH2UiM9oBWiHJFJ1OvxwIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.29.2.3 | 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.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| torgocorporate.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 a mx +include:spf.raiolanetworks.com -all" |
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.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| torgocorporate.com | A | IPv4 address | 178.211.133.46 |
| torgocorporate.com | NS | Name server | dns1.raiolanetworks.es |
| torgocorporate.com | NS | Name server | dns3.raiolanetworks.es |
| torgocorporate.com | NS | Name server | dns2.raiolanetworks.es |
| torgocorporate.com | MX | Mail server | 0 mail.torgocorporate.com |
| torgocorporate.com | SOA | Start of Authority | dns1.raiolanetworks.es. cpanel.raiolanetworks.es. 2026050201 3600 7200 1209600 86400 |
| torgocorporate.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a12:d280:100:46:: |
| torgocorporate.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 a mx +include:spf.raiolanetworks.com -all" |
| _dmarc.torgocorporate.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; sp=quarantine; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400;rua=mailto:dmarc@torgocorporate.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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.29.2.3 | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.29.2.3 | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.29.2.3 | 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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 3.10 - 3.12 | 94% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
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.