Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Criteria Corp |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 108.138.199.96 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
| ip_address | 108.138.199.128 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
| ip_address | 108.138.199.76 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
| ip_address | 108.138.199.23 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
80/tcp | http | Amazon CloudFront httpd - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| AWS Certificate Manager | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Amazon CloudFront | CDN |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| core-js 3.32.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Chart.js | JavaScript graphics |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://ondemandassessment.com/ | 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-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| AWS Certificate Manager | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Amazon CloudFront | CDN |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| core-js 3.32.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Chart.js | JavaScript graphics |
| 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.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| 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).
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.ondemandassessment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
We found insecure EDNS configuration on the following nameservers: ns-1555.awsdns-02.co.uk ns-1555.awsdns-02.co.uk:
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not properly implement EDNS (Extension Mechanisms for DNS). EDNS allows larger DNS packets and supports modern features such as DNSSEC.
Risk description
The risk exists because improper or missing EDNS support can lead to truncated responses, degraded DNS performance, and compatibility issues with DNSSEC. This exposes users to risks such as incomplete DNS resolution and failed DNSSEC validation.
Recommendation
We recommend ensuring the proper implementation of EDNS on the DNS server. Update the DNS server software to support EDNS fully, including modern features like DNSSEC. Regularly test DNS configurations to ensure compliance and performance.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns-1424.awsdns-50.org, ns-1555.awsdns-02.co.uk, ns-423.awsdns-52.com, ns-803.awsdns-36.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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.ondemandassessment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ondemandassessment.com | A | IPv4 address | 108.138.199.23 |
| ondemandassessment.com | A | IPv4 address | 108.138.199.128 |
| ondemandassessment.com | A | IPv4 address | 108.138.199.76 |
| ondemandassessment.com | A | IPv4 address | 108.138.199.96 |
| ondemandassessment.com | NS | Name server | ns-1424.awsdns-50.org |
| ondemandassessment.com | NS | Name server | ns-1555.awsdns-02.co.uk |
| ondemandassessment.com | NS | Name server | ns-423.awsdns-52.com |
| ondemandassessment.com | NS | Name server | ns-803.awsdns-36.net |
| ondemandassessment.com | MX | Mail server | 0 ondemandassessment-com.mail.protection.outlook.com |
| ondemandassessment.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-423.awsdns-52.com. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400 |
| ondemandassessment.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=pyoAdVRaZhuX_NIr8ZxQ36yNQrEMg60-If-OpnqBsHM" |
| ondemandassessment.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:servers.mcsv.net -all" |
| ondemandassessment.com | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "amazon.com" |
| _dmarc.ondemandassessment.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s" |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| k1 | rsa | 1296 | "k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDbNrX2cY/GUKIFx2G/1I00ftdAj713WP9AQ1xir85i89sA2guU0ta4UX1Xzm06XIU6iBP41VwmPwBGRNofhBVR+e6WHUoNyIR4Bn84LVcfZE20rmDeXQblIupNWBqLXM1Q+VieI/eZu/7k9/vOkLSaQQdml4Cv8lb3PcnluMVIhQIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ondemandassessment.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:servers.mcsv.net -all" |
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 87% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Chart.js | JavaScript graphics |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Hotjar | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| AWS Certificate Manager | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Amazon CloudFront | CDN |
| core-js 3.32.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| PWA | 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.