Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Mastodon |
| Description: | The original server of Mastodon, operated by Mastodon GmbH for the common good. |
| ip_address | 151.101.129.55 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Fastly, Inc. |
| asn | AS54113 |
| ip_address | 151.101.193.55 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Fastly, Inc. |
| asn | AS54113 |
| ip_address | 151.101.1.55 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Fastly, Inc. |
| asn | AS54113 |
| ip_address | 151.101.65.55 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Fastly, Inc. |
| asn | AS54113 |
80/tcp | http | Varnish - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| core-js 3.49.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Mastodon | Message boards |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| HSTS | Security |
| Varnish | Caching |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://mastodon.social/explore | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.
Risk description
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.
Recommendation
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| core-js 3.49.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Mastodon | Message boards |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| HSTS | Security |
| Varnish | Caching |
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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.mastodon.social | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:re+qkqn5debzpq@dmarc.postmarkapp.com; sp=none; aspf=r;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.
Risk description
While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.
Recommendation
We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.mastodon.social | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:re+qkqn5debzpq@dmarc.postmarkapp.com; sp=none; aspf=r;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is configured with sp=none, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. This allows subdomains to send emails without being subject to DMARC checks, making it easier for attackers to spoof emails from these subdomains. Subdomains are often overlooked in email security, and attackers can exploit this misconfiguration to launch phishing or spoofing attacks from seemingly legitimate subdomains of a protected domain.
Risk description
When the DMARC record is configured with sp=none, subdomains are not subject to DMARC enforcement, allowing attackers to spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked. This creates a significant risk of phishing and impersonation attacks, where malicious emails appear to originate from trusted subdomains. These spoofed emails can be used to deceive users or damage the organization's reputation, undermining the security benefits of DMARC for the primary domain.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend that the subdomain policy should be updated to sp=reject to ensure that any email failing DMARC checks from subdomains is automatically rejected. This will help prevent unauthorized emails from being sent from subdomains, reducing the risk of spoofing and phishing. Additionally, it's important to regularly monitor DMARC reports to track email activity from subdomains and adjust policies as needed to maintain consistent security across the entire domain.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.exoscale.ch, ns1.exoscale.com, ns1.exoscale.io, ns1.exoscale.net
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.mastodon.social | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:re+qkqn5debzpq@dmarc.postmarkapp.com; sp=none; aspf=r;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| mastodon.social | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:helpscoutemail.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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Mastodon | Message boards |
| Varnish | Caching |
| core-js 3.49.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| HSTS | Security |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAvpFR5qcuooYy2Q65WzphP5HMaToD5kkINZh5g4rVuAjfxi9jLpFFiLTylRHEJPL2P86WgI/EmWHgboCK2y3vEnLxw84WdpoRtSvr0PhBFXxyMG/LgwqMReCcgCjyyjlMNHHFyqbeqvarxhrqsNCZvlclN9iU+OTXvE7UgTmD/9bJIsW3FVxtb1RZrTUHR9jxT" "aSSpgpCwPu61uCcAzMxK2RQ7r4jpxFt3dQuCMtoToq22pxDkLnx4wVefss4dcmDecQU91LWLz7B/tnb8okkOp/ql5kRMwsWZ9TeKKs/JkHXIMgaeWg38jNWN16XWLZ0IsSLdQ+ye0P/Zfa/83kc2QIDAQAB" | |
| mx | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC+53JlGpXJ+psbYeSw8Zw/mjm8kjr3ogtT8bxP6v2O5iR4ZelyRIJrzu6/QiY8Y8GZzUWkThSaN881un8X/pg1Qi5LK9i69ERoM47CIFAT8q+CMTsbyaKLdmuollTqLYF+bf30bJTYodE7+8fAnr2u9y4tfu4iDUgm41XW+WQocQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| mastodon.social | A | IPv4 address | 151.101.129.55 |
| mastodon.social | A | IPv4 address | 151.101.193.55 |
| mastodon.social | A | IPv4 address | 151.101.1.55 |
| mastodon.social | A | IPv4 address | 151.101.65.55 |
| mastodon.social | NS | Name server | ns1.exoscale.ch |
| mastodon.social | NS | Name server | ns1.exoscale.com |
| mastodon.social | NS | Name server | ns1.exoscale.io |
| mastodon.social | NS | Name server | ns1.exoscale.net |
| mastodon.social | MX | Mail server | 1 smtp.google.com |
| mastodon.social | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.exoscale.ch. admin.dnsimple.com. 1579114453 86400 7200 604800 300 |
| mastodon.social | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a04:4e42::311 |
| mastodon.social | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a04:4e42:200::311 |
| mastodon.social | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a04:4e42:400::311 |
| mastodon.social | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a04:4e42:600::311 |
| mastodon.social | TXT | Text record | "zoho-verification=zb49784848.zmverify.zoho.eu" |
| mastodon.social | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:helpscoutemail.com ~all" |
| mastodon.social | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "certainly.com" |
| mastodon.social | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "letsencrypt.org" |
| _dmarc.mastodon.social | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; rua=mailto:re+qkqn5debzpq@dmarc.postmarkapp.com; sp=none; aspf=r;" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection