Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Mango – sito web ufficiale |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 89.46.104.26 |
| country | IT  |
| network_name | Aruba S.p.a |
| asn | AS31034 |
80/tcp | http | aruba-proxy - |
443/tcp | https | aruba-proxy - |
2222/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 9.6p1 Ubuntu 3ubuntu13.13 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Magnific Popup 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 1.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| parallax.js 2.8.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| imagesLoaded 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 1.11.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| WordPress 4.4.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| Aruba.it | Hosting, PaaS |
| CookieYes 1.5.3 | Cookie compliance |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Slider Revolution 5.1.6 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-28032 | 9.8 | 0.20723 | 0.95316 | WordPress before 5.5.2 mishandles deserialization requests in wp-includes/Requests/Utility/FilteredIterator.php. |
| CVE-2019-20041 | 9.8 | 0.00932 | 0.75311 | wp_kses_bad_protocol in wp-includes/kses.php in WordPress before 5.3.1 mishandles the HTML5 colon named entity, allowing attackers to bypass input sanitization, as demonstrated by the javascript: substring. |
| CVE-2019-17670 | 9.8 | 0.06319 | 0.90495 | WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because Windows paths are mishandled during certain validation of relative URLs. |
| CVE-2019-17669 | 9.8 | 0.1219 | 0.93502 | WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because URL validation does not consider the interpretation of a name as a series of hex characters. |
| CVE-2018-20148 | 9.8 | 0.54862 | 0.97902 | In WordPress before 4.9.9 and 5.x before 5.0.1, contributors could conduct PHP object injection attacks via crafted metadata in a wp.getMediaItem XMLRPC call. This is caused by mishandling of serialized data at phar:// URLs in the wp_get_attachment_thumb_file function in wp-includes/post.php. |
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Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions.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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.21319 | 0.95417 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2020-11022 | 6.9 | 0.22547 | 0.95568 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. |
| CVE-2019-11358 | 6.1 | 0.02942 | 0.85882 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. |
| CVE-2015-9251 | 6.1 | 0.14527 | 0.94136 | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. |
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://www.mango.it/ | http://www.mango.it/ | 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-311 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://www.mango.it/ | 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
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 |
|---|---|
| http://www.mango.it/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| http://www.mango.it/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Magnific Popup 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| jQuery Migrate 1.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| parallax.js 2.8.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| imagesLoaded 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 1.11.3 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| WordPress 4.4.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| Aruba.it | Hosting, PaaS |
| CookieYes 1.5.3 | Cookie compliance |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Slider Revolution 5.1.6 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| http://www.mango.it/ | 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: staff@mango.it |
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 |
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-28032 | 9.8 | 0.20723 | 0.95316 | No | WordPress before 5.5.2 mishandles deserialization requests in wp-includes/Requests/Utility/FilteredIterator.php. |
| CVE-2019-20041 | 9.8 | 0.00932 | 0.75311 | No | wp_kses_bad_protocol in wp-includes/kses.php in WordPress before 5.3.1 mishandles the HTML5 colon named entity, allowing attackers to bypass input sanitization, as demonstrated by the javascript: substring. |
| CVE-2019-17670 | 9.8 | 0.06319 | 0.90495 | No | WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because Windows paths are mishandled during certain validation of relative URLs. |
| CVE-2019-17669 | 9.8 | 0.1219 | 0.93502 | No | WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because URL validation does not consider the interpretation of a name as a series of hex characters. |
| CVE-2018-20148 | 9.8 | 0.54862 | 0.97902 | No | In WordPress before 4.9.9 and 5.x before 5.0.1, contributors could conduct PHP object injection attacks via crafted metadata in a wp.getMediaItem XMLRPC call. This is caused by mishandling of serialized data at phar:// URLs in the wp_get_attachment_thumb_file function in wp-includes/post.php. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 4.4.2
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
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-28032 | 9.8 | 0.20723 | 0.95316 | No | WordPress before 5.5.2 mishandles deserialization requests in wp-includes/Requests/Utility/FilteredIterator.php. |
| CVE-2019-20041 | 9.8 | 0.00932 | 0.75311 | No | wp_kses_bad_protocol in wp-includes/kses.php in WordPress before 5.3.1 mishandles the HTML5 colon named entity, allowing attackers to bypass input sanitization, as demonstrated by the javascript: substring. |
| CVE-2019-17670 | 9.8 | 0.06319 | 0.90495 | No | WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because Windows paths are mishandled during certain validation of relative URLs. |
| CVE-2019-17669 | 9.8 | 0.1219 | 0.93502 | No | WordPress before 5.2.4 has a Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability because URL validation does not consider the interpretation of a name as a series of hex characters. |
| CVE-2018-20148 | 9.8 | 0.54862 | 0.97902 | No | In WordPress before 4.9.9 and 5.x before 5.0.1, contributors could conduct PHP object injection attacks via crafted metadata in a wp.getMediaItem XMLRPC call. This is caused by mishandling of serialized data at phar:// URLs in the wp_get_attachment_thumb_file function in wp-includes/post.php. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 4.4.2
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 WordPress has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 4.4.2 End-of-life date: 2016-04-12 Latest version for the cycle: 4.4.34 This release cycle (4.4) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2015-12-09 and its latest release date was 2025-07-15.
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 4.4.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| Slider Revolution 5.1.6 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Aruba.it | Hosting, PaaS |
| parallax.js 2.8.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Magnific Popup 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 1.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| CookieYes 1.5.3 | Cookie compliance |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| 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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 4.15 - 5.6 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 4.4.2 | CMS, Blogs |
| Slider Revolution 5.1.6 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Aruba.it | Hosting, PaaS |
| parallax.js 2.8.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Magnific Popup 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 1.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 4.4.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| CookieYes 1.5.3 | Cookie compliance |
| 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.mango.it | A | IPv4 address | 89.46.104.26 |
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.