Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Soldotna Hardware and Fishing |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 52.183.59.220 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Microsoft Corporation |
| asn | AS8075 |
22/tcp | ssh | OpenSSH 8.2p1 Ubuntu 4ubuntu0.13 |
80/tcp | http | nginx 1.19.3 |
443/tcp | https | nginx 1.19.3 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Contact Form 7 4.9 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| FitVids.JS 1.1 | Widgets, Video players |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| jQuery Migrate 1.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| parallax.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| imagesLoaded 3.1.8 | JavaScript libraries |
| Infinite Scroll 2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 5.6.30 | Programming languages |
| Easy Pie Chart | JavaScript libraries |
| WordPress 4.7.31 | CMS, Blogs |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| YouTube | Video players |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-9641 | 9.8 | 0.28368 | 0.96314 | An issue was discovered in the EXIF component in PHP before 7.1.27, 7.2.x before 7.2.16, and 7.3.x before 7.3.3. There is an uninitialized read in exif_process_IFD_in_TIFF. |
| CVE-2019-9023 | 9.8 | 0.10587 | 0.92977 | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. A number of heap-based buffer over-read instances are present in mbstring regular expression functions when supplied with invalid multibyte data. These occur in ext/mbstring/oniguruma/regcomp.c, ext/mbstring/oniguruma/regexec.c, ext/mbstring/oniguruma/regparse.c, ext/mbstring/oniguruma/enc/unicode.c, and ext/mbstring/oniguruma/src/utf32_be.c when a multibyte regular expression pattern contains invalid multibyte sequences. |
| CVE-2019-9021 | 9.8 | 0.12253 | 0.93582 | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. A heap-based buffer over-read in PHAR reading functions in the PHAR extension may allow an attacker to read allocated or unallocated memory past the actual data when trying to parse the file name, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-20783. This is related to phar_detect_phar_fname_ext in ext/phar/phar.c. |
| CVE-2019-9020 | 9.8 | 0.04964 | 0.89217 | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. Invalid input to the function xmlrpc_decode() can lead to an invalid memory access (heap out of bounds read or read after free). This is related to xml_elem_parse_buf in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xml_element.c. |
| CVE-2018-7584 | 9.8 | 0.72909 | 0.98725 | In PHP through 5.6.33, 7.0.x before 7.0.28, 7.1.x through 7.1.14, and 7.2.x through 7.2.2, there is a stack-based buffer under-read while parsing an HTTP response in the php_stream_url_wrap_http_ex function in ext/standard/http_fopen_wrapper.c. This subsequently results in copying a large string. |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Contact Form 7 4.9 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| FitVids.JS 1.1 | Widgets, Video players |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| jQuery Migrate 1.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| parallax.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| imagesLoaded 3.1.8 | JavaScript libraries |
| Infinite Scroll 2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP 5.6.30 | Programming languages |
| Easy Pie Chart | JavaScript libraries |
| WordPress 4.7.31 | CMS, Blogs |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| YouTube | Video players |
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
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://soldotnahardware.com/ | 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 |
|---|---|
| https://soldotnahardware.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 |
|---|---|
| https://soldotnahardware.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-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://soldotnahardware.com/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 |
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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://soldotnahardware.com/ | 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: ordertrustworthy@gmail.com |
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.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2019-9641 | 9.8 | 0.28368 | 0.96314 | No | An issue was discovered in the EXIF component in PHP before 7.1.27, 7.2.x before 7.2.16, and 7.3.x before 7.3.3. There is an uninitialized read in exif_process_IFD_in_TIFF. |
| CVE-2019-9023 | 9.8 | 0.10587 | 0.92977 | No | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. A number of heap-based buffer over-read instances are present in mbstring regular expression functions when supplied with invalid multibyte data. These occur in ext/mbstring/oniguruma/regcomp.c, ext/mbstring/oniguruma/regexec.c, ext/mbstring/oniguruma/regparse.c, ext/mbstring/oniguruma/enc/unicode.c, and ext/mbstring/oniguruma/src/utf32_be.c when a multibyte regular expression pattern contains invalid multibyte sequences. |
| CVE-2019-9021 | 9.8 | 0.12253 | 0.93582 | No | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. A heap-based buffer over-read in PHAR reading functions in the PHAR extension may allow an attacker to read allocated or unallocated memory past the actual data when trying to parse the file name, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-20783. This is related to phar_detect_phar_fname_ext in ext/phar/phar.c. |
| CVE-2019-9020 | 9.8 | 0.04964 | 0.89217 | No | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. Invalid input to the function xmlrpc_decode() can lead to an invalid memory access (heap out of bounds read or read after free). This is related to xml_elem_parse_buf in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xml_element.c. |
| CVE-2018-7584 | 9.8 | 0.72909 | 0.98725 | No | In PHP through 5.6.33, 7.0.x before 7.0.28, 7.1.x through 7.1.14, and 7.2.x through 7.2.2, there is a stack-based buffer under-read while parsing an HTTP response in the php_stream_url_wrap_http_ex function in ext/standard/http_fopen_wrapper.c. This subsequently results in copying a large string. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 5.6.30
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-2021-23017 | 7.7 | 0.75236 | 0.98831 | No | A security issue in nginx resolver was identified, which might allow an attacker who is able to forge UDP packets from the DNS server to cause 1-byte memory overwrite, resulting in worker process crash or potential other impact. |
| CVE-2023-44487 | 7.5 | 0.94386 | 0.99969 | Yes | The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023. |
| CVE-2021-3618 | 7.4 | 0.00352 | 0.57125 | No | ALPACA is an application layer protocol content confusion attack, exploiting TLS servers implementing different protocols but using compatible certificates, such as multi-domain or wildcard certificates. A MiTM attacker having access to victim's traffic at the TCP/IP layer can redirect traffic from one subdomain to another, resulting in a valid TLS session. This breaks the authentication of TLS and cross-protocol attacks may be possible where the behavior of one protocol service may compromise the other at the application layer. |
| CVE-2022-41742 | 7.1 | 0.00028 | 0.06566 | No | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to cause a worker process crash, or might result in worker process memory disclosure by using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the module ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. |
| CVE-2022-41741 | 7 | 0.00496 | 0.65078 | No | NGINX Open Source before versions 1.23.2 and 1.22.1, NGINX Open Source Subscription before versions R2 P1 and R1 P1, and NGINX Plus before versions R27 P1 and R26 P1 have a vulnerability in the module ngx_http_mp4_module that might allow a local attacker to corrupt NGINX worker memory, resulting in its termination or potential other impact using a specially crafted audio or video file. The issue affects only NGINX products that are built with the ngx_http_mp4_module, when the mp4 directive is used in the configuration file. Further, the attack is possible only if an attacker can trigger processing of a specially crafted audio or video file with the module ngx_http_mp4_module. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Nginx 1.19.3
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 1392 | "v=DKIM1; t=y; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4fju5dRLECYeUvZEy2idRbmGYamu6ezAU8wSqMiwYOy3nnud83HS1VLn5VDpWim8lTgQd3gQDgT3mCT+LeRcQpLnhsgyEXGF2ivx1NFvqKChUJmfUFRWN4bq6ya9DLm+HWlFWMejMWeKDQ3jiH3T8V6tEiP882ha/imJlWq8XwXJvnYOtr+DlBClBVEW" "24j06VJKijb0ShI3xF193M/aHVxlPVVeGM3EYS7lBNSHFYFVL9rkMXpRqaBh72mf34S9Poh9mXox/hoAnZiNC8VLvlVStAS7Id8NoyJpe7x+cknqyHIOikurI8FJ9GpN+mBXJv7zPvm/F316hL7glBe3fQIDAQAB" |
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
We managed to detect that PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 5.6.30 End-of-life date: 2018-12-31 Latest version for the cycle: 5.6.40 This release cycle (5.6) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2014-08-28 and its latest release date was 2019-01-10. The support ended on 2017-01-19.
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 managed to detect that nginx has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.19.3 End-of-life date: 2021-05-25 Latest version for the cycle: 1.19.10 This release cycle (1.19) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2020-05-26 and its latest release date was 2021-04-13.
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 didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.
Vulnerability description
We found that the target server has no DMARC policy configured. A missing DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy means that the domain is not enforcing any DMARC policies to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks. Without DMARC, even if SPF (Sender Policy Framework) or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are configured, there is no mechanism to tell receiving email servers how to handle messages that fail authentication. This leaves the domain vulnerable to abuse, such as email spoofing and impersonation.
Risk description
Without a DMARC policy, your domain is highly vulnerable to email spoofing, allowing attackers to impersonate your brand and send fraudulent emails that appear legitimate. This can lead to phishing attacks targeting your customers, employees, or partners, potentially resulting in stolen credentials, financial loss, or unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Additionally, repeated spoofing attempts can severely damage your brand's reputation, as recipients may lose trust in communications from your domain, associating your brand with malicious activity. The absence of DMARC also prevents you from monitoring and mitigating email-based attacks, leaving your domain exposed to ongoing abuse.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing a DMARC policy for your domain. Start by configuring a DMARC record with a policy of p=none, which will allow you to monitor email flows without impacting legitimate emails. This initial setup helps identify how emails from your domain are being processed by recipient servers. Once you’ve verified that legitimate emails are passing SPF and DKIM checks, you can gradually enforce stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject to protect against spoofing and phishing attacks. Additionally, include rua and ruf email addresses in the DMARC record to receive aggregate and forensic reports. These reports will provide valuable insights into authentication failures and help you detect any spoofing attempts.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.mydomain.com, ns2.mydomain.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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | rsa | 1392 | "v=DKIM1; t=y; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA4fju5dRLECYeUvZEy2idRbmGYamu6ezAU8wSqMiwYOy3nnud83HS1VLn5VDpWim8lTgQd3gQDgT3mCT+LeRcQpLnhsgyEXGF2ivx1NFvqKChUJmfUFRWN4bq6ya9DLm+HWlFWMejMWeKDQ3jiH3T8V6tEiP882ha/imJlWq8XwXJvnYOtr+DlBClBVEW" "24j06VJKijb0ShI3xF193M/aHVxlPVVeGM3EYS7lBNSHFYFVL9rkMXpRqaBh72mf34S9Poh9mXox/hoAnZiNC8VLvlVStAS7Id8NoyJpe7x+cknqyHIOikurI8FJ9GpN+mBXJv7zPvm/F316hL7glBe3fQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| soldotnahardware.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.183.59.220 |
| soldotnahardware.com | NS | Name server | ns1.mydomain.com |
| soldotnahardware.com | NS | Name server | ns2.mydomain.com |
| soldotnahardware.com | MX | Mail server | 30 mx.soldotnahardware.com |
| soldotnahardware.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.mydomain.com. dnsadmin.mydomain.com. 2012080968 10800 3600 604800 3600 |
| soldotnahardware.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:66.96.128.0/18 include:websitewelcome.com ?all" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| soldotnahardware.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:66.96.128.0/18 include:websitewelcome.com ?all" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 4.7.31 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 5.6.30 | Programming languages |
| YouTube | Video players |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Contact Form 7 4.9 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| FitVids.JS 1.1 | Widgets, Video players |
| parallax.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 1.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 3.1.8 | JavaScript libraries |
| Infinite Scroll 2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Easy Pie Chart | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.