Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | OneLink: all of your content with just one link |
| Description: | OneLink - The page for all your links |
| IP address | 172.104.140.148 |
| Country | DE  |
| AS number | AS63949 |
| Net name | Akamai Technologies Inc |
25/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
465/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
587/tcp | smtp | Postfix smtpd - |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| gunicorn | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| Python | Programming languages |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://onelink.page/support | csrftoken | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: csrftoken=Gz891CRJBPLuAM7GfNvUMC5tfOFQsS0B1aOK3Z0Z5cVbSLbyKPXIIPydEe8UJkwc |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1004 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | jquery 3.2.1 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | 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. | jquery 3.2.1 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | 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. | jquery 3.2.1 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
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.
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-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://onelink.page/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| gunicorn | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.2.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| Python | Programming languages |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| 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
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
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.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.onelink.page | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@xpandity.com" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.onelink.page | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@xpandity.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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| onelink.page | A | IPv4 address | 172.104.140.148 |
| onelink.page | NS | Name server | ns3.linode.com |
| onelink.page | NS | Name server | ns2.linode.com |
| onelink.page | NS | Name server | ns5.linode.com |
| onelink.page | NS | Name server | ns4.linode.com |
| onelink.page | NS | Name server | ns1.linode.com |
| onelink.page | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.xpandity.com |
| onelink.page | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.linode.com. webmaster.xpandity.com. 2021000001 14400 14400 1209600 86400 |
| onelink.page | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fe02:d83d |
| onelink.page | TXT | Text record | "CAA 128 issue \"letsencrypt.org\"" |
| onelink.page | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx ip4:172.104.140.148 ip6:2a01:7e01:e001:164::/64 ip6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fe02:d83d -all" |
| _dmarc.onelink.page | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=none;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@xpandity.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.
Evidence
| Operating System |
|---|
| Linux 5.0 - 5.4 |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| onelink.page | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx ip4:172.104.140.148 ip6:2a01:7e01:e001:164::/64 ip6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fe02:d83d -all" |