Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Access Denied |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 23.213.161.213 |
| country | DE  |
| network_name | Akamai International B.V |
| asn | AS20940 |
| ip_address | 23.213.161.226 |
| country | DE |
| network_name | Akamai International B.V |
| asn | AS20940 |
80/tcp | http | AkamaiGHost - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Akamai | CDN |
| Boomerang | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Akamai mPulse | RUM |
| FancyBox 3.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.6.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Akamai | CDN |
| Boomerang | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| Akamai mPulse | RUM |
| FancyBox 3.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.6.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| 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.
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: a7-64.akam.net, a5-66.akam.net, a18-67.akam.net, a6-66.akam.net, a22-65.akam.net, a1-247.akam.net
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
We checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.nabu.gov.ua | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc@nabu.gov.ua; ruf=mailto:dmarc@nabu.gov.ua; pct=100; fo=1; ri=7200" |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Slick | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| Akamai | CDN |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| nabu.gov.ua | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +mx -all" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| nabu.gov.ua | A | IPv4 address | 23.213.161.226 |
| nabu.gov.ua | A | IPv4 address | 23.213.161.213 |
| nabu.gov.ua | NS | Name server | a7-64.akam.net |
| nabu.gov.ua | NS | Name server | a5-66.akam.net |
| nabu.gov.ua | NS | Name server | a18-67.akam.net |
| nabu.gov.ua | NS | Name server | a6-66.akam.net |
| nabu.gov.ua | NS | Name server | a22-65.akam.net |
| nabu.gov.ua | NS | Name server | a1-247.akam.net |
| nabu.gov.ua | MX | Mail server | 10 mx.nabu.gov.ua |
| nabu.gov.ua | SOA | Start of Authority | a1-247.akam.net. hostmaster.nabu.gov.ua. 2022040553 3600 600 604800 300 |
| nabu.gov.ua | TXT | Text record | "cisco-ci-domain-verification=61028dbb9538adea36449248e5aa91e6262085ad0a971ff7aec381d930e6c127" |
| nabu.gov.ua | TXT | Text record | "MS=B2155C06764D89B9FA9EB0032D9A8C15AC753FE8" |
| nabu.gov.ua | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +mx -all" |
| _dmarc.nabu.gov.ua | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc@nabu.gov.ua; ruf=mailto:dmarc@nabu.gov.ua; pct=100; fo=1; ri=7200" |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 5.0 - 5.4 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection