Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Home - Secure by Choice |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 18.214.48.22 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Amazon Inc |
| asn | AS14618 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Altcha | Security |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Simplero | Marketing automation |
| Simplero Websites | LMS |
| Stimulus | JavaScript frameworks |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the target application has overly permissive settings in its client access policy files. The crossdomain.xml file controls the access of externally hosted Flash scripts to this website, while clientaccesspolicy.xml specifies other sites that can read content from this website - which is normally denied by the Same Origin Policy. This vulnerability arises from configurations that grant excessive permissions to clients.
Risk description
In `crossdomain.xml`, the external websites which are permitted to read content from this website via Flash are specified in the XML tag `<allow-access-from>`. If the value of this tag is too permissive (ex. wildcard), it means that any Flash script from an external website could access content from this website, including confidential information of users. If the allowed domains are too permissive (ex. wildcard) in `clientaccesspolicy.xml`, then any external website will be able to read content (including sensitive information) from this website. Flash is not supported anymore and this poses a risk only if the user's clients use older browsers, making them vulnerable to their information being accessed by a malicious external Flash script.
Recommendation
We recommend to carefully review the content of the policy file and permit access only for legitimate domains.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-16 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Altcha | Security |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Simplero | Marketing automation |
| Simplero Websites | LMS |
| Stimulus | JavaScript frameworks |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
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://securebychoice.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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://securebychoice.com/history |
|
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.securebychoice.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; pct=100; aspf=r; rua=mailto:postmaster@securebychoice.com,mailto:re+jfgusnlgcg2@dmarc.postmarkapp.com" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.simply.com, ns2.simply.com, ns3.simply.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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| securebychoice.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:_spf.simplero.com include:sendgrid.net ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.securebychoice.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; pct=100; aspf=r; rua=mailto:postmaster@securebychoice.com,mailto:re+jfgusnlgcg2@dmarc.postmarkapp.com" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is configured with sp=none, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. This allows subdomains to send emails without being subject to DMARC checks, making it easier for attackers to spoof emails from these subdomains. Subdomains are often overlooked in email security, and attackers can exploit this misconfiguration to launch phishing or spoofing attacks from seemingly legitimate subdomains of a protected domain.
Risk description
When the DMARC record is configured with sp=none, subdomains are not subject to DMARC enforcement, allowing attackers to spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked. This creates a significant risk of phishing and impersonation attacks, where malicious emails appear to originate from trusted subdomains. These spoofed emails can be used to deceive users or damage the organization's reputation, undermining the security benefits of DMARC for the primary domain.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend that the subdomain policy should be updated to sp=reject to ensure that any email failing DMARC checks from subdomains is automatically rejected. This will help prevent unauthorized emails from being sent from subdomains, reducing the risk of spoofing and phishing. Additionally, it's important to regularly monitor DMARC reports to track email activity from subdomains and adjust policies as needed to maintain consistent security across the entire domain.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.securebychoice.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; pct=100; aspf=r; rua=mailto:postmaster@securebychoice.com,mailto:re+jfgusnlgcg2@dmarc.postmarkapp.com" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| k1 | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDbNrX2cY/GUKIFx2G/1I00ftdAj713WP9AQ1xir85i89sA2guU0ta4UX1Xzm06XIU6iBP41VwmPwBGRNofhBVR+e6WHUoNyIR4Bn84LVcfZE20rmDeXQblIupNWBqLXM1Q+VieI/eZu/7k9/vOkLSaQQdml4Cv8lb3PcnluMVIhQIDAQAB;" |
| k2 | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv2aC2KjGKLOwTweBY5A9RpjsxaBXR9r7OAU6U8/zn92ivImI75naUujWbItRI/QmL1jy5PWGqLwoUA0b90ObWaLDc+i9MtTNmGeWO009hr20fIxhGg6XBT2kjZ1DTThopSe1nAndsupmcBwlQ5Q6LJ+ZAxLcujnPIxM0ZBLmgpkv8u6RfY4eFP8OLvdAW3oSu" "B0DyLDigQX4Sj8wBO4YIdQH6AAmBeOsidsKAFNFUCpc3vCxtBDR12U+cBg724l3sBkMQ8evnz6idnqxq9QAVYh8k4kJ+RP+6cqTdy7LjIm8xY/bQNpQIpGUAuDo2DjLcCDun9DAI4Q/3z+Q0o9QuQIDAQAB;" |
| k3 | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsYGiMSn7fsUqSvfSX40x9R1OlRtbNiCY80lHRIlcKx3XDIR7257aUx+q9CSIARdfTL6KCuLGNFx5g9TgVr6png4ajcieSQGtOehBgxnkDN8aAA5TX0FmFrcefJU0JoxLOF09EKgXxhSSHCk/ekVb0PXSboHXoZ9+EI404F1qhcwXXIgHXTaUthHTut2P6BBZh" "IXIgvDe/w49GchR7MRJqjNb7neEBbYHbgWuBTvvHCg7Gy6m6n9krYK+ROWq3dVvXy9plAGK3ygM+HtjIiMt7arRGMOF0WgDTz7YdN9BGpt6BvXxLnjiQcgS5T9n+cIyPZgiWzDMXNlaEEdKTEKxrwIDAQAB;" |
| smtpapi | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; t=s; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDPtW5iwpXVPiH5FzJ7Nrl8USzuY9zqqzjE0D1r04xDN6qwziDnmgcFNNfMewVKN2D1O+2J9N14hRprzByFwfQW76yojh54Xu3uSbQ3JP0A7k8o8GutRF8zbFUA8n0ZH2y0cIEjMliXY4W4LwPA7m4q0ObmvSjhd63O9d8z1XkUBwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
| Simplero Websites | LMS |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Stimulus | JavaScript frameworks |
| Simplero | Marketing automation |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Altcha | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Google Font API | 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| securebychoice.com | A | IPv4 address | 18.214.48.22 |
| securebychoice.com | NS | Name server | ns1.simply.com |
| securebychoice.com | NS | Name server | ns2.simply.com |
| securebychoice.com | NS | Name server | ns3.simply.com |
| securebychoice.com | MX | Mail server | 0 securebychoice-com.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| securebychoice.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.simply.com. hostmaster.simply.com. 2025080100 14400 3600 1209600 3600 |
| securebychoice.com | TXT | Text record | "MS=ms94395800" |
| securebychoice.com | TXT | Text record | "MS=msXXXXXXXX" |
| securebychoice.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:_spf.simplero.com include:sendgrid.net ~all" |
| _dmarc.securebychoice.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none; sp=none; pct=100; aspf=r; rua=mailto:postmaster@securebychoice.com,mailto:re+jfgusnlgcg2@dmarc.postmarkapp.com" |
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.