Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Agenda de la comunicación está en construcción |
| Description: | Donde aprenderás todo lo que necesites sobre la comunicación |
| ip_address | 185.118.53.185 |
| country | ES  |
| network_name | Soltia Consulting SL |
| asn | AS201942 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
53/tcp | domain | ISC BIND 9.11.4-P2 |
80/tcp | http | LiteSpeed httpd - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
111/tcp | rpcbind | - 2-4 |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | LiteSpeed httpd - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.1 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.1 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
2078/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2080/tcp | https | TwistedWeb httpd 9.0.0 |
2082/tcp | http | - - |
2083/tcp | https | - - |
2086/tcp | http | - - |
2087/tcp | https | - - |
3306/tcp | mysql | MySQL 5.5.5-10.3.39-MariaDB-cll-lve |
5432/tcp | postgresql | PostgreSQL DB - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.27.1.1 | Web servers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://agendadelacomunicacion.es/ | 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://agendadelacomunicacion.es/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://agendadelacomunicacion.es/ | 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
| 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.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://agendadelacomunicacion.es/ | 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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-8616 | 8.6 | 0.19877 | 0.95282 | No | A malicious actor who intentionally exploits this lack of effective limitation on the number of fetches performed when processing referrals can, through the use of specially crafted referrals, cause a recursing server to issue a very large number of fetches in an attempt to process the referral. This has at least two potential effects: The performance of the recursing server can potentially be degraded by the additional work required to perform these fetches, and The attacker can exploit this behavior to use the recursing server as a reflector in a reflection attack with a high amplification factor. |
| CVE-2021-25216 | 8.1 | 0.31412 | 0.96643 | No | In BIND 9.5.0 -> 9.11.29, 9.12.0 -> 9.16.13, and versions BIND 9.11.3-S1 -> 9.11.29-S1 and 9.16.8-S1 -> 9.16.13-S1 of BIND Supported Preview Edition, as well as release versions 9.17.0 -> 9.17.1 of the BIND 9.17 development branch, BIND servers are vulnerable if they are running an affected version and are configured to use GSS-TSIG features. In a configuration which uses BIND's default settings the vulnerable code path is not exposed, but a server can be rendered vulnerable by explicitly setting values for the tkey-gssapi-keytab or tkey-gssapi-credential configuration options. Although the default configuration is not vulnerable, GSS-TSIG is frequently used in networks where BIND is integrated with Samba, as well as in mixed-server environments that combine BIND servers with Active Directory domain controllers. For servers that meet these conditions, the ISC SPNEGO implementation is vulnerable to various attacks, depending on the CPU architecture for which BIND was built: For named binaries compiled for 64-bit platforms, this flaw can be used to trigger a buffer over-read, leading to a server crash. For named binaries compiled for 32-bit platforms, this flaw can be used to trigger a server crash due to a buffer overflow and possibly also to achieve remote code execution. We have determined that standard SPNEGO implementations are available in the MIT and Heimdal Kerberos libraries, which support a broad range of operating systems, rendering the ISC implementation unnecessary and obsolete. Therefore, to reduce the attack surface for BIND users, we will be removing the ISC SPNEGO implementation in the April releases of BIND 9.11 and 9.16 (it had already been dropped from BIND 9.17). We would not normally remove something from a stable ESV (Extended Support Version) of BIND, but since system libraries can replace the ISC SPNEGO implementation, we have made an exception in this case for reasons of stability and security. |
| CVE-2020-8625 | 8.1 | 0.02257 | 0.84227 | No | BIND servers are vulnerable if they are running an affected version and are configured to use GSS-TSIG features. In a configuration which uses BIND's default settings the vulnerable code path is not exposed, but a server can be rendered vulnerable by explicitly setting valid values for the tkey-gssapi-keytab or tkey-gssapi-credentialconfiguration options. Although the default configuration is not vulnerable, GSS-TSIG is frequently used in networks where BIND is integrated with Samba, as well as in mixed-server environments that combine BIND servers with Active Directory domain controllers. The most likely outcome of a successful exploitation of the vulnerability is a crash of the named process. However, remote code execution, while unproven, is theoretically possible. Affects: BIND 9.5.0 -> 9.11.27, 9.12.0 -> 9.16.11, and versions BIND 9.11.3-S1 -> 9.11.27-S1 and 9.16.8-S1 -> 9.16.11-S1 of BIND Supported Preview Edition. Also release versions 9.17.0 -> 9.17.1 of the BIND 9.17 development branch |
| CVE-2023-50868 | 7.5 | 0.13757 | 0.94081 | No | The Closest Encloser Proof aspect of the DNS protocol (in RFC 5155 when RFC 9276 guidance is skipped) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption for SHA-1 computations) via DNSSEC responses in a random subdomain attack, aka the "NSEC3" issue. The RFC 5155 specification implies that an algorithm must perform thousands of iterations of a hash function in certain situations. |
| CVE-2023-50387 | 7.5 | 0.50801 | 0.97766 | No | Certain DNSSEC aspects of the DNS protocol (in RFC 4033, 4034, 4035, 6840, and related RFCs) allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via one or more DNSSEC responses, aka the "KeyTrap" issue. One of the concerns is that, when there is a zone with many DNSKEY and RRSIG records, the protocol specification implies that an algorithm must evaluate all combinations of DNSKEY and RRSIG records. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Isc Bind 9.11.4-p2
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
We managed to detect a publicly accessible PostgreSQL service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 5432/tcp open postgresql PostgreSQL DB
Vulnerability description
We found that the PostgreSQL service is publicly accessible. This service often holds critical organizational data, making it a potential prime target for determined attackers.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker exploits this issue by launching a password-based attack on the PostgreSQL service. If an attacker identifies a correct set of login details, they could gain access to the database and start enumerating, potentially revealing confidential information. Moreover, such vulnerabilities could lead to other forms of attacks, including privilege escalation, allowing attackers to run system commands and move laterally to other systems in the internal network.
Recommendation
We recommend ensuring that the PostgreSQL service is not publicly accessible. The PostgreSQL service should be safeguarded behind a firewall or made available only to users connected through a Virtual Private Network (VPN) server. However, if the PostgreSQL service is required to be directly accessible over the Internet, we recommend reconfiguring it such that it is accessible only from known IP addresses.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible MySQL service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 3306/tcp open mysql MySQL 5.5.5-10.3.39-MariaDB-cll-lve
Vulnerability description
We identified that the MySQL service is publicly accessible. MySQL serves as a common database for numerous web applications and services for data storage, making it a potential prime target for determined attackers.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker exploits this issue by launching a password-based attack on the MySQL service. Furthermore, they could exploit zero-day vulnerabilities to obtain remote access to the MySQL database server, thereby gaining complete control over its operating system and associated services. Such an attack could lead to the exposure of confidential or sensitive information.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off public Internet access to MySQL and opting for a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that enforces two-factor authentication (2FA). Avoid enabling direct user authentication to the MySQL service via the Internet, as this could enable attackers to engage in password-guessing and potentially initiate attacks leading to complete control. However, if the MySQL service is required to be directly accessible over the Internet, we recommend reconfiguring it to be accessible only from known IP addresses.
Evidence
We managed to detect that MySQL has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.5.5-10.3.39-mariadb-cll-lve End-of-life date: 2020-04-11 Latest version for the cycle: 5.5.68 This release cycle (5.5) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2012-04-11 and its latest release date was 2020-05-06.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
We checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
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 didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.
Vulnerability description
We found that the target server has no DMARC policy configured. A missing DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy means that the domain is not enforcing any DMARC policies to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks. Without DMARC, even if SPF (Sender Policy Framework) or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are configured, there is no mechanism to tell receiving email servers how to handle messages that fail authentication. This leaves the domain vulnerable to abuse, such as email spoofing and impersonation.
Risk description
Without a DMARC policy, your domain is highly vulnerable to email spoofing, allowing attackers to impersonate your brand and send fraudulent emails that appear legitimate. This can lead to phishing attacks targeting your customers, employees, or partners, potentially resulting in stolen credentials, financial loss, or unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Additionally, repeated spoofing attempts can severely damage your brand's reputation, as recipients may lose trust in communications from your domain, associating your brand with malicious activity. The absence of DMARC also prevents you from monitoring and mitigating email-based attacks, leaving your domain exposed to ongoing abuse.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing a DMARC policy for your domain. Start by configuring a DMARC record with a policy of p=none, which will allow you to monitor email flows without impacting legitimate emails. This initial setup helps identify how emails from your domain are being processed by recipient servers. Once you’ve verified that legitimate emails are passing SPF and DKIM checks, you can gradually enforce stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject to protect against spoofing and phishing attacks. Additionally, include rua and ruf email addresses in the DMARC record to receive aggregate and forensic reports. These reports will provide valuable insights into authentication failures and help you detect any spoofing attempts.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| agendadelacomunicacion.es | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:IP_dominio +include:relay.dns-es.com ~allEjemplo:v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:91.235.40.72 +include:relay.dns-es.com ~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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: gina.ns.cloudflare.com, jermaine.ns.cloudflare.com
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| agendadelacomunicacion.es | A | IPv4 address | 185.118.53.185 |
| agendadelacomunicacion.es | NS | Name server | gina.ns.cloudflare.com |
| agendadelacomunicacion.es | NS | Name server | jermaine.ns.cloudflare.com |
| agendadelacomunicacion.es | MX | Mail server | 0 mail.agendadelacomunicacion.es |
| agendadelacomunicacion.es | SOA | Start of Authority | gina.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2394973767 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| agendadelacomunicacion.es | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:IP_dominio +include:relay.dns-es.com ~allEjemplo:v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:91.235.40.72 +include:relay.dns-es.com ~all" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Linux 3.10 - 4.11 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| WebFactory Under Construction | WordPress plugins |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
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 |
|---|---|
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cPanel | Hosting panels |
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 |
|---|---|
| TwistedWeb 9.0.0 | Web servers |
| HSTS | Security |
| 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.