Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Members Media |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 216.150.1.1 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | - |
| asn | - |
80/tcp | http | Vercel - |
443/tcp | https | Vercel - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.239 | Analytics |
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://members.media/ | currency, country, sales-tax-rate | Set-Cookie: currency=eur Set-Cookie: country=IT Set-Cookie: sales-tax-rate=0 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://members.media/ | currency, country, sales-tax-rate | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: currency=eur Set-Cookie: country=IT Set-Cookie: sales-tax-rate=0 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1004 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://members.media/policies/privacy-policy | 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 Cookies: country=IT currency=eur sales-tax-rate=0 | Error message error report found in: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application does not properly handle exceptional conditions, leading to error messages that reveal sensitive information.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker may use the contents of error messages to help launch another, more focused attack. For example, an attempt to exploit a path traversal weakness (CWE-22) might yield the full pathname of the installed application.
Recommendation
It is recommended treating all exceptions of the application flow. Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-209 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://members.media/ | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.
Risk description
The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.
Recommendation
The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.239 | Analytics |
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| HSTS | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://members.media/ | 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://members.media/ | 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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://members.media/signup | 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 Cookies: country=IT currency=eur sales-tax-rate=0 | The following form sends inputs of type password plainly in the URL: |
Vulnerability description
We found a form which is submitted using a GET method and has inputs of the type password. The end result is that passwords are submitted in URLs.
Risk description
Passwords submitted in URLs have a higher chance of being leaked. The main reason is that URLs can be leaked in browser cross-site requests via the Referer header. Additionally, URLs are usually stored in all kinds of logs. If any access or error logs of the server were publicly accessible, an attacker could also harvest password from it.
Recommendation
You should submit passwords using POST rather than GET. This way sensitive data won't be shared to other locations via URLs.
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.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://members.media/ | 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: hello@members.media |
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 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://members.media/signup |
|
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.
Recommendation
Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.members.media | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:fkdz4s2k@rua.dmarceye.com; fo=1; ri=86400;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| members.media | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.members.media | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:fkdz4s2k@rua.dmarceye.com; fo=1; ri=86400;" |
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.members.media | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:fkdz4s2k@rua.dmarceye.com; fo=1; ri=86400;" |
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns45.domaincontrol.com, ns46.domaincontrol.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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Vercel | PaaS |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| HSTS | Security |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Facebook Pixel | Analytics |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCRjQ8g6lpdqYQoDDvMAMzI5KjjqkUCFtLV3/pFpCHFSs/poCaE898GapmASHLICHyqtQIL3C701RqzBct+1eDDr6GYHHvVkVNcuEoNrR2/EmDaMDJVdQfelYB5EqAMBZm5hzObYLTEb7rEm8qDDfCXTWsBOl7UbLWf6J0oXya5QQIDAQAB" | |
| k2 | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv2aC2KjGKLOwTweBY5A9RpjsxaBXR9r7OAU6U8/zn92ivImI75naUujWbItRI/QmL1jy5PWGqLwoUA0b90ObWaLDc+i9MtTNmGeWO009hr20fIxhGg6XBT2kjZ1DTThopSe1nAndsupmcBwlQ5Q6LJ+ZAxLcujnPIxM0ZBLmgpkv8u6RfY4eFP8OLvdAW3oSu" "B0DyLDigQX4Sj8wBO4YIdQH6AAmBeOsidsKAFNFUCpc3vCxtBDR12U+cBg724l3sBkMQ8evnz6idnqxq9QAVYh8k4kJ+RP+6cqTdy7LjIm8xY/bQNpQIpGUAuDo2DjLcCDun9DAI4Q/3z+Q0o9QuQIDAQAB;" |
| k3 | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsYGiMSn7fsUqSvfSX40x9R1OlRtbNiCY80lHRIlcKx3XDIR7257aUx+q9CSIARdfTL6KCuLGNFx5g9TgVr6png4ajcieSQGtOehBgxnkDN8aAA5TX0FmFrcefJU0JoxLOF09EKgXxhSSHCk/ekVb0PXSboHXoZ9+EI404F1qhcwXXIgHXTaUthHTut2P6BBZh" "IXIgvDe/w49GchR7MRJqjNb7neEBbYHbgWuBTvvHCg7Gy6m6n9krYK+ROWq3dVvXy9plAGK3ygM+HtjIiMt7arRGMOF0WgDTz7YdN9BGpt6BvXxLnjiQcgS5T9n+cIyPZgiWzDMXNlaEEdKTEKxrwIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Android 5.0.1 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| members.media | A | IPv4 address | 216.150.1.1 |
| members.media | NS | Name server | ns45.domaincontrol.com |
| members.media | NS | Name server | ns46.domaincontrol.com |
| members.media | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| members.media | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| members.media | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| members.media | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| members.media | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| members.media | SOA | Start of Authority | ns45.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2025103106 28800 7200 604800 600 |
| members.media | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=5AJZXkTd31pv6bj6d4Oycp39x0XS12o8OkhHAu_J4Uw" |
| members.media | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all" |
| _dmarc.members.media | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:fkdz4s2k@rua.dmarceye.com; fo=1; ri=86400;" |
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.