Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Home |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 35.172.94.1 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Amazon Inc |
| asn | AS14618 |
| ip_address | 100.24.208.97 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon Inc |
| asn | AS14618 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
8443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Advertising | Advertising |
| jQuery Migrate 3.5.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| MobX | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PhotoSwipe | Photo galleries, JavaScript libraries |
| Skrollr 0.6.26 | JavaScript libraries |
| Usercentrics | Cookie compliance |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Duda \1 | CMS, Page builders |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Lodash 4.17.21 | JavaScript libraries |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://gemini-security.co.uk/ | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.
Risk description
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.
Recommendation
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://gemini-security.co.uk/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Advertising | Advertising |
| jQuery Migrate 3.5.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| MobX | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PhotoSwipe | Photo galleries, JavaScript libraries |
| Skrollr 0.6.26 | JavaScript libraries |
| Usercentrics | Cookie compliance |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Duda \1 | CMS, Page builders |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Lodash 4.17.21 | JavaScript libraries |
| HSTS | 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.
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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://gemini-security.co.uk/ | 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: mymail@mailservice.com info@gemini-security.co.uk |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-security.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "v=verifydomain MS=7729804" |
| gemini-security.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "MS=B0BBBF700B47F6165221A55167A5D76CE5B68216" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-security.co.uk | A | IPv4 address | 35.172.94.1 |
| gemini-security.co.uk | A | IPv4 address | 100.24.208.97 |
| gemini-security.co.uk | NS | Name server | ns37.domaincontrol.com |
| gemini-security.co.uk | NS | Name server | ns38.domaincontrol.com |
| gemini-security.co.uk | MX | Mail server | 0 geminisecurity-co-uk01e.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| gemini-security.co.uk | SOA | Start of Authority | ns37.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2024102400 28800 7200 604800 600 |
| gemini-security.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "v=verifydomain MS=7729804" |
| gemini-security.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "MS=B0BBBF700B47F6165221A55167A5D76CE5B68216" |
| gemini-security.co.uk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-security.co.uk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector1 | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEArfkae10yqMbKASj/ciwzx0vyeK3dYKmJINJsgd8AKEazMPeG5w4Y4DVpvcvVP0WP9S8r+wjvm4iyN6/178ePvMsBRz5mnnt00BbdqsnoXavBNKngOwcu/cOsZJMIN/VIRK2nzYsXRQmEWvcE5sAB36BY6lXThRAOWk2tqxAmQNFRNvG53wVc8rF0AW45L2KNS" "vGRYz8hQPVMyaXrqTvVqGCBHrC3wwj+61stwah6ksoFg5WzL6Y8h4ipQhX4/pgpoIK6E6dWf6sFvCWoOrfT8ltaz+Tc5V/6VRwdO/tFAFFvLwoyjYvOgH3N/QqzZQtlTgjQW4Z6zGK5am6h5mXhFQIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Usercentrics | Cookie compliance |
| jQuery Migrate | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Usercentrics | Cookie compliance |
| jQuery Migrate | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Usercentrics | Cookie compliance |
| jQuery Migrate | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| HSTS | 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.