Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Kalkaraboatyard.com |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 138.201.139.86 |
| country | DE  |
| network_name | Hetzner Online GmbH |
| asn | AS24940 |
25/tcp | smtp | cbdev cmail smtpd - |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP 7.2.24 | Programming languages |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-3566 | 9.8 | 0.06883 | 0.9323 | A command inject vulnerability allows an attacker to perform command injection on Windows applications that indirectly depend on the CreateProcess function when the specific conditions are satisfied. |
| CVE-2022-37454 | 9.8 | 0.05236 | 0.91449 | The Keccak XKCP SHA-3 reference implementation before fdc6fef has an integer overflow and resultant buffer overflow that allows attackers to execute arbitrary code or eliminate expected cryptographic properties. This occurs in the sponge function interface. |
| CVE-2017-8923 | 9.8 | 0.07191 | 0.93495 | The zend_string_extend function in Zend/zend_string.h in PHP through 7.1.5 does not prevent changes to string objects that result in a negative length, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging a script's use of .= with a long string. |
| CVE-2020-7067 | 7.5 | 0.04311 | 0.8988 | In PHP versions 7.2.x below 7.2.30, 7.3.x below 7.3.17 and 7.4.x below 7.4.5, if PHP is compiled with EBCDIC support (uncommon), urldecode() function can be made to access locations past the allocated memory, due to erroneously using signed numbers as array indexes. |
| CVE-2020-7062 | 7.5 | 0.0351 | 0.87677 | In PHP versions 7.2.x below 7.2.28, 7.3.x below 7.3.15 and 7.4.x below 7.4.3, when using file upload functionality, if upload progress tracking is enabled, but session.upload_progress.cleanup is set to 0 (disabled), and the file upload fails, the upload procedure would try to clean up data that does not exist and encounter null pointer dereference, which would likely lead to a crash. |
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Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions.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
| URL | Response URL | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| http://kalkaraboatyard.com/ | http://kalkaraboatyard.com/ | Communication is made over unsecure, unencrypted HTTP. |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the communication between the web browser and the server is done using the HTTP protocol, which transmits data unencrypted over the network.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who manages to intercept the communication at the network level can read and modify the data transmitted (including passwords, secret tokens, credit card information and other sensitive data).
Recommendation
We recommend you to reconfigure the web server to use HTTPS - which encrypts the communication between the web browser and the server.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-319 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP 7.2.24 | Programming languages |
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 |
|---|---|
| http://kalkaraboatyard.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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://kalkaraboatyard.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 |
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2024-3566 | 9.8 | 0.06883 | 0.9323 | No | A command inject vulnerability allows an attacker to perform command injection on Windows applications that indirectly depend on the CreateProcess function when the specific conditions are satisfied. |
| CVE-2022-37454 | 9.8 | 0.05236 | 0.91449 | No | The Keccak XKCP SHA-3 reference implementation before fdc6fef has an integer overflow and resultant buffer overflow that allows attackers to execute arbitrary code or eliminate expected cryptographic properties. This occurs in the sponge function interface. |
| CVE-2017-8923 | 9.8 | 0.07191 | 0.93495 | No | The zend_string_extend function in Zend/zend_string.h in PHP through 7.1.5 does not prevent changes to string objects that result in a negative length, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging a script's use of .= with a long string. |
| CVE-2020-7067 | 7.5 | 0.04311 | 0.8988 | No | In PHP versions 7.2.x below 7.2.30, 7.3.x below 7.3.17 and 7.4.x below 7.4.5, if PHP is compiled with EBCDIC support (uncommon), urldecode() function can be made to access locations past the allocated memory, due to erroneously using signed numbers as array indexes. |
| CVE-2020-7062 | 7.5 | 0.0351 | 0.87677 | No | In PHP versions 7.2.x below 7.2.28, 7.3.x below 7.3.15 and 7.4.x below 7.4.3, when using file upload functionality, if upload progress tracking is enabled, but session.upload_progress.cleanup is set to 0 (disabled), and the file upload fails, the upload procedure would try to clean up data that does not exist and encounter null pointer dereference, which would likely lead to a crash. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 7.2.24
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 that PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 7.2.24 End-of-life date: 2020-11-30 Latest version for the cycle: 7.2.34 This release cycle (7.2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2017-11-30 and its latest release date was 2020-10-01. The support ended on 2019-11-30.
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 found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns57.domaincontrol.com, ns58.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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.kalkaraboatyard.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:report@kalkaraboatyard.com; ruf=mailto:report@kalkaraboatyard.com" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| kalkaraboatyard.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:138.201.139.86 include:_spf.google.com -all" |
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector1 | rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCxXaHNCC2cdpdkBKys8iqNOV9q6kBltYgGFaYhADqSaKvmJyKAh5N0GjMIiAdGBefe5DrwL699/zSULxDJDCP46itFECtCxv2jjcVHHEZ8lRixn0Hgqx3iLT5VLCLkf9n9oeBP1K118GqHecT0Gei+EER2+NTT7P5f0mrEA3lT2wIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP 7.2.24 | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
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 5.1 | 96% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| kalkaraboatyard.com | A | IPv4 address | 138.201.139.86 |
| kalkaraboatyard.com | NS | Name server | ns57.domaincontrol.com |
| kalkaraboatyard.com | NS | Name server | ns58.domaincontrol.com |
| kalkaraboatyard.com | MX | Mail server | 10 kalkaraboatyard.com |
| kalkaraboatyard.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns57.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2026060901 28800 7200 604800 600 |
| kalkaraboatyard.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:138.201.139.86 include:_spf.google.com -all" |
| _dmarc.kalkaraboatyard.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; pct=100; rua=mailto:report@kalkaraboatyard.com; ruf=mailto:report@kalkaraboatyard.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.