Vulnerability Scan Result

Title: | Login | ENCG FES - MASTER WITHOT |
Description: | Premium Multipurpose Admin & Dashboard Template |
ip_address | 196.200.146.27 |
country | MA ![]() |
network_name | Cnrst |
asn | AS30983 |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.62 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.62 |
2000/tcp | cisco-sccp | - - |
5060/tcp | sip | - - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
jQuery CDN | CDN |
Bootstrap 4.4.1 | UI frameworks |
metisMenu | JavaScript libraries |
core-js 3.0.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62 | Web servers |
jQuery 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Laravel | Web frameworks |
PHP | Programming languages |
Popper | Miscellaneous |
jsDelivr | CDN |
HSTS | Security |
Ubuntu | Operating systems |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2025-23048 | 9.1 | 0.00071 | 0.22223 | In some mod_ssl configurations on Apache HTTP Server 2.4.35 through to 2.4.63, an access control bypass by trusted clients is possible using TLS 1.3 session resumption. Configurations are affected when mod_ssl is configured for multiple virtual hosts, with each restricted to a different set of trusted client certificates (for example with a different SSLCACertificateFile/Path setting). In such a case, a client trusted to access one virtual host may be able to access another virtual host, if SSLStrictSNIVHostCheck is not enabled in either virtual host. |
CVE-2024-47252 | 7.5 | 0.00085 | 0.25535 | Insufficient escaping of user-supplied data in mod_ssl in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.63 and earlier allows an untrusted SSL/TLS client to insert escape characters into log files in some configurations. In a logging configuration where CustomLog is used with "%{varname}x" or "%{varname}c" to log variables provided by mod_ssl such as SSL_TLS_SNI, no escaping is performed by either mod_log_config or mod_ssl and unsanitized data provided by the client may appear in log files. |
CVE-2024-43394 | 7.5 | 0.00111 | 0.30267 | Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Apache HTTP Server on Windows allows to potentially leak NTLM hashes to a malicious server via mod_rewrite or apache expressions that pass unvalidated request input. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.63. Note: The Apache HTTP Server Project will be setting a higher bar for accepting vulnerability reports regarding SSRF via UNC paths. The server offers limited protection against administrators directing the server to open UNC paths. Windows servers should limit the hosts they will connect over via SMB based on the nature of NTLM authentication. |
CVE-2024-43204 | 7.5 | 0.00185 | 0.40645 | SSRF in Apache HTTP Server with mod_proxy loaded allows an attacker to send outbound proxy requests to a URL controlled by the attacker. Requires an unlikely configuration where mod_headers is configured to modify the Content-Type request or response header with a value provided in the HTTP request. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.64 which fixes this issue. |
CVE-2024-42516 | 7.5 | 0.00289 | 0.52001 | HTTP response splitting in the core of Apache HTTP Server allows an attacker who can manipulate the Content-Type response headers of applications hosted or proxied by the server can split the HTTP response. This vulnerability was described as CVE-2023-38709 but the patch included in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 did not address the issue. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.64, which fixes this issue. |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
---|---|---|
https://passerelle.encg.usmba.ac.ma/login | laravel_session | Set-Cookie: laravel_session=eyJpdiI6Inc1ZlB4YlRCaERmUkgvTGZmMkhnZVE9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoidVV1K3U0a20xNVNDQmprOVZ0bTRvZGROOHd3VldyY2NTc2FIZy9kQXFlb0tDKzBucFMwWE5IbHVYWEdYQlJpSEtVcGFRZXFMNUdPYVRNYmZSRnRZdVFralg3azBPVnlJbnZLTUhiM1FEMzJqNERQUHZVOHVGN09KVm16dGFjdVEiLCJtYWMiOiI2NzdiZWRjMTQ4MGYzMDRhMmJlNzgyODUwMGViOTdkZjUyMDJmZjJlMzlmYmQxZmNmOTI1MjMxNDNiMTJiY2NhIn0%3D |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure
flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
CWE | CWE-614 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2020-11023 | 6.9 | 0.21547 | 0.95477 | 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 | 0.02566 | 0.84946 | 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. |
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 |
---|---|
jQuery CDN | CDN |
Bootstrap 4.4.1 | UI frameworks |
metisMenu | JavaScript libraries |
core-js 3.0.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62 | Web servers |
jQuery 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Laravel | Web frameworks |
PHP | Programming languages |
Popper | Miscellaneous |
jsDelivr | CDN |
HSTS | Security |
Ubuntu | Operating systems |
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
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://passerelle.encg.usmba.ac.ma/login | 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://passerelle.encg.usmba.ac.ma/login | 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
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://passerelle.encg.usmba.ac.ma/login |
|
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.
Recommendation
Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.
Evidence
URL | Method | Summary |
---|---|---|
https://passerelle.encg.usmba.ac.ma/login | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,HEAD,POST` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
CWE | CWE-16 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://passerelle.encg.usmba.ac.ma/login | 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: support.encg@usmba.ac.ma admin.encg@usmba.ac.ma |
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 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2025-23048 | 9.1 | 0.00071 | 0.22223 | No | In some mod_ssl configurations on Apache HTTP Server 2.4.35 through to 2.4.63, an access control bypass by trusted clients is possible using TLS 1.3 session resumption. Configurations are affected when mod_ssl is configured for multiple virtual hosts, with each restricted to a different set of trusted client certificates (for example with a different SSLCACertificateFile/Path setting). In such a case, a client trusted to access one virtual host may be able to access another virtual host, if SSLStrictSNIVHostCheck is not enabled in either virtual host. |
CVE-2024-47252 | 7.5 | 0.00085 | 0.25535 | No | Insufficient escaping of user-supplied data in mod_ssl in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.63 and earlier allows an untrusted SSL/TLS client to insert escape characters into log files in some configurations. In a logging configuration where CustomLog is used with "%{varname}x" or "%{varname}c" to log variables provided by mod_ssl such as SSL_TLS_SNI, no escaping is performed by either mod_log_config or mod_ssl and unsanitized data provided by the client may appear in log files. |
CVE-2024-43394 | 7.5 | 0.00111 | 0.30267 | No | Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in Apache HTTP Server on Windows allows to potentially leak NTLM hashes to a malicious server via mod_rewrite or apache expressions that pass unvalidated request input. This issue affects Apache HTTP Server: from 2.4.0 through 2.4.63. Note: The Apache HTTP Server Project will be setting a higher bar for accepting vulnerability reports regarding SSRF via UNC paths. The server offers limited protection against administrators directing the server to open UNC paths. Windows servers should limit the hosts they will connect over via SMB based on the nature of NTLM authentication. |
CVE-2024-43204 | 7.5 | 0.00185 | 0.40645 | No | SSRF in Apache HTTP Server with mod_proxy loaded allows an attacker to send outbound proxy requests to a URL controlled by the attacker. Requires an unlikely configuration where mod_headers is configured to modify the Content-Type request or response header with a value provided in the HTTP request. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.64 which fixes this issue. |
CVE-2024-42516 | 7.5 | 0.00289 | 0.52001 | No | HTTP response splitting in the core of Apache HTTP Server allows an attacker who can manipulate the Content-Type response headers of applications hosted or proxied by the server can split the HTTP response. This vulnerability was described as CVE-2023-38709 but the patch included in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.59 did not address the issue. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.64, which fixes this issue. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62
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 Bootstrap has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 4.5.2 End-of-life date: 2023-01-01 Latest version for the cycle: 4.6.2 This release cycle (4) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2018-01-18 and its latest release date was 2022-07-19. The support ended on 2021-11-01.
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 |
---|---|
PHP | Programming languages |
Ubuntu | Operating systems |
Laravel | Web frameworks |
Bootstrap 4.5.2 | UI frameworks |
Apache HTTP Server 2.4.62 | Web servers |
metisMenu | JavaScript libraries |
jsDelivr | CDN |
jQuery CDN | CDN |
jQuery 3.5.1 | JavaScript libraries |
HSTS | Security |
Popper | 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 |
---|---|---|---|
passerelle.encg.usmba.ac.ma | A | IPv4 address | 196.200.146.27 |
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.