Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://peercoach.org/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://peercoach.org/

Submitted: May 23, 2025 from IL

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	David: Peer Recovery Counselor – Transform your life with expert support. David's peer recovery counseling offers guidance and understanding on your journey to wellness and empowerment.
Description:	No description found

IP Information

IP address	50.6.19.13
Country	US
AS number	-
Net name	-

Open Ports

21/tcp	ftp	Pure-FTPd -
22/tcp	ssh	OpenSSH 8.7
25/tcp	smtp	Exim smtpd 4.98.1
26/tcp	smtp	Exim smtpd 4.98.1
53/tcp	domain	- -
80/tcp	http	Apache httpd -
110/tcp	pop3	Dovecot pop3d -
143/tcp	imap	Dovecot imapd -
443/tcp	https	Apache httpd -
465/tcp	tcpwrapped	- -
587/tcp	tcpwrapped	- -
993/tcp	imap	Dovecot imapd -
995/tcp	pop3	Dovecot pop3d -
3306/tcp	mysql	MySQL -
5432/tcp	postgresql	PostgreSQL DB 9.6.0 or later

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Clipboard.js	JavaScript libraries
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1	JavaScript libraries
Apache HTTP Server	Web servers
Jetpack	WordPress plugins
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
MySQL	Databases
Nginx 1.27.2	Web servers, Reverse proxies
PHP	Programming languages
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji)	Font scripts
Underscore.js 1.13.7	JavaScript libraries
WordPress 6.8.1	CMS, Blogs
Bluehost	Hosting
RSS	Miscellaneous

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://peercoach.org/	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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://peercoach.org/	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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://peercoach.org/	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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://peercoach.org/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Clipboard.js	JavaScript libraries
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1	JavaScript libraries
Apache HTTP Server	Web servers
Jetpack	WordPress plugins
jQuery	JavaScript libraries
MySQL	Databases
Nginx 1.27.2	Web servers, Reverse proxies
PHP	Programming languages
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji)	Font scripts
Underscore.js 1.13.7	JavaScript libraries
WordPress 6.8.1	CMS, Blogs
Bluehost	Hosting
RSS	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.

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL
https://peercoach.org/robots.txt

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).

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://peercoach.org/wp-json/wp/v2	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	Possible API endpoint found at `/wp-json/wp/v2`
https://peercoach.org/xmlrpc.php	GET	Query: rsd= 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	Possible API endpoint found at `/xmlrpc.php`

Vulnerability description

We found API endpoints while crawling the given web application.

Risk description

These endpoints may represent an attack surface for malicious actors interested in API-specific vulnerabilities.

Recommendation

Use the API Scanner to perform a more thorough vulnerability check for these endpoints, if an API specification is present.

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://peercoach.org/.well-known/security.txt

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

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVSS	CVE	Summary
9.8	CVE-2023-38408	The PKCS#11 feature in ssh-agent in OpenSSH before 9.3p2 has an insufficiently trustworthy search path, leading to remote code execution if an agent is forwarded to an attacker-controlled system. (Code in /usr/lib is not necessarily safe for loading into ssh-agent.) NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2016-10009.
8.1	CVE-2024-6387	A security regression (CVE-2006-5051) was discovered in OpenSSH's server (sshd). There is a race condition which can lead sshd to handle some signals in an unsafe manner. An unauthenticated, remote attacker may be able to trigger it by failing to authenticate within a set time period.
6.8	CVE-2025-26465	A vulnerability was found in OpenSSH when the VerifyHostKeyDNS option is enabled. A machine-in-the-middle attack can be performed by a malicious machine impersonating a legit server. This issue occurs due to how OpenSSH mishandles error codes in specific conditions when verifying the host key. For an attack to be considered successful, the attacker needs to manage to exhaust the client's memory resource first, turning the attack complexity high.
6.5	CVE-2023-51385	In ssh in OpenSSH before 9.6, OS command injection might occur if a user name or host name has shell metacharacters, and this name is referenced by an expansion token in certain situations. For example, an untrusted Git repository can have a submodule with shell metacharacters in a user name or host name.
5.9	CVE-2023-48795	The SSH transport protocol with certain OpenSSH extensions, found in OpenSSH before 9.6 and other products, allows remote attackers to bypass integrity checks such that some packets are omitted (from the extension negotiation message), and a client and server may consequently end up with a connection for which some security features have been downgraded or disabled, aka a Terrapin attack. This occurs because the SSH Binary Packet Protocol (BPP), implemented by these extensions, mishandles the handshake phase and mishandles use of sequence numbers. For example, there is an effective attack against SSH's use of ChaCha20-Poly1305 (and CBC with Encrypt-then-MAC). The bypass occurs in chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com and (if CBC is used) the -etm@openssh.com MAC algorithms. This also affects Maverick Synergy Java SSH API before 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT, Dropbear through 2022.83, Ssh before 5.1.1 in Erlang/OTP, PuTTY before 0.80, AsyncSSH before 2.14.2, golang.org/x/crypto before 0.17.0, libssh before 0.10.6, libssh2 through 1.11.0, Thorn Tech SFTP Gateway before 3.4.6, Tera Term before 5.1, Paramiko before 3.4.0, jsch before 0.2.15, SFTPGo before 2.5.6, Netgate pfSense Plus through 23.09.1, Netgate pfSense CE through 2.7.2, HPN-SSH through 18.2.0, ProFTPD before 1.3.8b (and before 1.3.9rc2), ORYX CycloneSSH before 2.3.4, NetSarang XShell 7 before Build 0144, CrushFTP before 10.6.0, ConnectBot SSH library before 2.2.22, Apache MINA sshd through 2.11.0, sshj through 0.37.0, TinySSH through 20230101, trilead-ssh2 6401, LANCOM LCOS and LANconfig, FileZilla before 3.66.4, Nova before 11.8, PKIX-SSH before 14.4, SecureCRT before 9.4.3, Transmit5 before 5.10.4, Win32-OpenSSH before 9.5.0.0p1-Beta, WinSCP before 6.2.2, Bitvise SSH Server before 9.32, Bitvise SSH Client before 9.33, KiTTY through 0.76.1.13, the net-ssh gem 7.2.0 for Ruby, the mscdex ssh2 module before 1.15.0 for Node.js, the thrussh library before 0.35.1 for Rust, and the Russh crate before 0.40.2 for Rust.

Vulnerability description

Vulnerabilities found for Openssh 8.7

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 SSH service.

Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-05-23 19:03 EEST
Nmap scan report for peercoach.org (50.6.19.13)
Host is up (0.14s latency).
rDNS record for 50.6.19.13: 50-6-19-13.unifiedlayer.com

PORT   STATE SERVICE VERSION
22/tcp open  ssh     OpenSSH 8.7 (protocol 2.0)
| ssh-auth-methods: 
|   Supported authentication methods: 
|     publickey
|     password
|_    keyboard-interactive

Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2.25 seconds

Vulnerability description

We found that the SSH service with username/password authentication is publicly accessible. Network administrators often use remote administration protocols to control devices like switches, routers, and other essential systems. However, allowing these services to be accessible via the Internet can increase security risks, creating potential opportunities for attacks on the organization.

Risk description

Exposing this service online with username/password authentication can enable attackers to launch authentication attacks, like guessing login credentials, and potentially gaining unauthorized access. Vulnerabilities, such as unpatched software, protocol flaws, or backdoors could also be exploited. An example is the CVE-2024-3094 (XZ Utils Backdoor) vulnerability.

Recommendation

We recommend turning off SSH with username/password authentication access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the SSH service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, it is advisable to utilize SSH Public Key Authentication since it employs a key pair to verify the identity of a user or process.

Evidence

We managed to detect a publicly accessible MySQL service.

PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
3306/tcp open mysql MySQL

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 a publicly accessible PostgreSQL service.

PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
5432/tcp open postgresql PostgreSQL DB 9.6.0 or later

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 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 2025-05-23 19:03 EEST
Nmap scan report for peercoach.org (50.6.19.13)
Host is up (0.14s latency).
rDNS record for 50.6.19.13: 50-6-19-13.unifiedlayer.com

PORT    STATE SERVICE  VERSION
995/tcp open  ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d
|_pop3-capabilities: SASL(PLAIN LOGIN) AUTH-RESP-CODE PIPELINING USER TOP UIDL CAPA 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 8.52 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
peercoach.org	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:spf.titan.email ~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.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100"
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

Vulnerability description

We found that the target is configured with more than one DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) record in its DNS settings. According to the DMARC specification, only a single DMARC record is allowed per domain. When multiple DMARC records exist, email receivers may ignore the DMARC policy, leading to an improper application of email authentication and security checks. This misconfiguration weakens the domain’s email authentication stance, potentially allowing spoofed or fraudulent emails to bypass security checks. Such inconsistencies can lead to confusion for mail receivers on how to handle emails that fail SPF (Sender Policy Framework) and DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) checks.

Risk description

When a domain has multiple DMARC records, email servers may not process the DMARC policy correctly, leading to confusion about how to handle emails that fail SPF and DKIM checks. This misconfiguration can be exploited by malicious actors to send spoofed or fraudulent emails that appear to come from the affected domain. As a result, organizations may face an increased risk of phishing attacks targeting employees or customers, potential damage to their reputation, and disruptions to the delivery of legitimate emails, as some mail servers may ignore the intended DMARC policy altogether.

Recommendation

To resolve the issue of multiple DMARC records, ensure that only one valid DMARC record is published in your domain's DNS. Remove any duplicate or conflicting entries and verify the configuration using tools like MXToolbox or DMARCian. Additionally, implement a strict DMARC policy such as p=reject or p=quarantine to ensure emails that fail SPF or DKIM checks are properly handled. If subdomains are in use, configure the sp tag appropriately. Enable DMARC reporting by setting up the rua and ruf tags to receive aggregate and forensic reports, which can help monitor for ongoing issues or abuse.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100"

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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.

Risk description

The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100"

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
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

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.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

Vulnerability description

Risk description

Recommendation

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

Vulnerability description

Risk description

Recommendation

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAxmGvBLP+eR6A65aLMqUR54oWcc1/mgvoe+1yM4ywfkBv6bYBJOe4+5qIkf26NcaUzofj0TWcExtUWqqGq+99Ao0oaIySLohmsFFqXOYYUxL6QCCB7bHMbmqsuDKUmhvZ3UwLmI97GudpiZae+jrHgzC4ktkf4B08IIcMOx5f664apaDkY+TXMlCG4b2n6LuYy" "7AEaiq9H4MWp9vIr1nTR7eL7WSfC1TV0XhY3XdQGLRMjhdABGW5L40k7poBDdNCyIoioq8hifhsmO+le3H2H+yv6ILFfjkKxce69EGaEVOfwL3jNnAlJ4J1Ba8l79XZ0xKYPVAmJerNITOAko6HPwIDAQAB;"

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
peercoach.org	A	IPv4 address	50.6.19.13
peercoach.org	NS	Name server	ns1.bluehost.com
peercoach.org	NS	Name server	ns2.bluehost.com
peercoach.org	MX	Mail server	0 mx2.titan.email
peercoach.org	MX	Mail server	0 mx1.titan.email
peercoach.org	SOA	Start of Authority	ns1.bluehost.com. root.sh00137.bluehost.com. 2025052209 86400 7200 3600000 300
peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1;p=none;sp=none;adkim=r;aspf=r;pct=100"
peercoach.org	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:spf.titan.email ~all"
_dmarc.peercoach.org	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

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.

Operating System	Accuracy
Cisco Unified Communications Manager VoIP adapter	97%

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAxmGvBLP+eR6A65aLMqUR54oWcc1/mgvoe+1yM4ywfkBv6bYBJOe4+5qIkf26NcaUzofj0TWcExtUWqqGq+99Ao0oaIySLohmsFFqXOYYUxL6QCCB7bHMbmqsuDKUmhvZ3UwLmI97GudpiZae+jrHgzC4ktkf4B08IIcMOx5f664apaDkY+TXMlCG4b2n6LuYy" "7AEaiq9H4MWp9vIr1nTR7eL7WSfC1TV0XhY3XdQGLRMjhdABGW5L40k7poBDdNCyIoioq8hifhsmO+le3H2H+yv6ILFfjkKxce69EGaEVOfwL3jNnAlJ4J1Ba8l79XZ0xKYPVAmJerNITOAko6HPwIDAQAB;"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
WordPress 6.8.1	CMS, Blogs
MySQL	Databases
PHP	Programming languages
Nginx 1.27.2	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Apache HTTP Server	Web servers
Bluehost	Hosting
Jetpack	WordPress plugins
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
WordPress 6.8.1	CMS, Blogs
MySQL	Databases
PHP	Programming languages
Nginx 1.27.2	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Apache HTTP Server	Web servers
Bluehost	Hosting
Jetpack	WordPress plugins
RSS	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.