Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://onlinecasino358.com/

Scanned target: http://onlinecasino358.com/

Submitted: April 19, 2025 from BG

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	Index of /
Description:	No description found

IP Information

IP address	158.101.87.136
Country	JP
AS number	AS31898
Net name	Oracle Corporation

Open Ports

21/tcp	ftp	Pure-FTPd -
22/tcp	ssh	OpenSSH 8
25/tcp	smtp	Exim smtpd 4.98.1
80/tcp	http	LiteSpeed -
110/tcp	pop3	Dovecot pop3d -
143/tcp	imap	Dovecot imapd -
443/tcp	https	LiteSpeed -
465/tcp	smtp	Exim smtpd 4.98.1
587/tcp	smtp	Exim smtpd 4.98.1
993/tcp	imaps	- -
995/tcp	pop3s	- -

Web Technologies

No technologies could be detected.

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Response URL	Evidence
http://onlinecasino358.com/	http://onlinecasino358.com/	Communication is made over unsecure, unencrypted HTTP.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the communication between the web browser and the server is done using the HTTP protocol, which transmits data unencrypted over the network.

Risk description

The risk is that an attacker who manages to intercept the communication at the network level can read and modify the data transmitted (including passwords, secret tokens, credit card information and other sensitive data).

Recommendation

We recommend you to reconfigure the web server to use HTTPS - which encrypts the communication between the web browser and the server.

Classification

CWE	CWE-311
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A3 - Sensitive Data Exposure
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A4 - Insecure Design

Evidence

URL	Evidence
http://onlinecasino358.com/	Found output resembling directory listing.
http://onlinecasino358.com/onlinecasino358.com/	Found output resembling directory listing.

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the target application's web server is affected by a Directory Listing vulnerability in its URL structure. Directory listing is enabled due to misconfigured server settings, allowing attackers to view all files and subdirectories on the server.

Risk description

The risk is that it's often the case that sensitive files are "hidden" among public files in that location and attackers can use this vulnerability to access them.

Recommendation

We recommend reconfiguring the web server in order to deny directory listing. Furthermore, you should verify that there are no sensitive files at the mentioned URLs.

Classification

CWE	CWE-548
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A1 - Broken Access Control

Evidence

URL	Evidence
http://onlinecasino358.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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
http://onlinecasino358.com/	Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.

Risk description

The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.

Recommendation

We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
http://onlinecasino358.com/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL
Missing: http://onlinecasino358.com/.well-known/security.txt

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

CVSS	CVE	Summary
9.8	CVE-2023-38408	The PKCS#11 feature in ssh-agent in OpenSSH before 9.3p2 has an insufficiently trustworthy search path, leading to remote code execution if an agent is forwarded to an attacker-controlled system. (Code in /usr/lib is not necessarily safe for loading into ssh-agent.) NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2016-10009.
6.8	CVE-2020-15778	scp in OpenSSH through 8.3p1 allows command injection in the scp.c toremote function, as demonstrated by backtick characters in the destination argument. NOTE: the vendor reportedly has stated that they intentionally omit validation of "anomalous argument transfers" because that could "stand a great chance of breaking existing workflows."
6.8	CVE-2025-26465	A vulnerability was found in OpenSSH when the VerifyHostKeyDNS option is enabled. A machine-in-the-middle attack can be performed by a malicious machine impersonating a legit server. This issue occurs due to how OpenSSH mishandles error codes in specific conditions when verifying the host key. For an attack to be considered successful, the attacker needs to manage to exhaust the client's memory resource first, turning the attack complexity high.
6.5	CVE-2023-51385	In ssh in OpenSSH before 9.6, OS command injection might occur if a user name or host name has shell metacharacters, and this name is referenced by an expansion token in certain situations. For example, an untrusted Git repository can have a submodule with shell metacharacters in a user name or host name.
5.9	CVE-2023-48795	The SSH transport protocol with certain OpenSSH extensions, found in OpenSSH before 9.6 and other products, allows remote attackers to bypass integrity checks such that some packets are omitted (from the extension negotiation message), and a client and server may consequently end up with a connection for which some security features have been downgraded or disabled, aka a Terrapin attack. This occurs because the SSH Binary Packet Protocol (BPP), implemented by these extensions, mishandles the handshake phase and mishandles use of sequence numbers. For example, there is an effective attack against SSH's use of ChaCha20-Poly1305 (and CBC with Encrypt-then-MAC). The bypass occurs in chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com and (if CBC is used) the -etm@openssh.com MAC algorithms. This also affects Maverick Synergy Java SSH API before 3.1.0-SNAPSHOT, Dropbear through 2022.83, Ssh before 5.1.1 in Erlang/OTP, PuTTY before 0.80, AsyncSSH before 2.14.2, golang.org/x/crypto before 0.17.0, libssh before 0.10.6, libssh2 through 1.11.0, Thorn Tech SFTP Gateway before 3.4.6, Tera Term before 5.1, Paramiko before 3.4.0, jsch before 0.2.15, SFTPGo before 2.5.6, Netgate pfSense Plus through 23.09.1, Netgate pfSense CE through 2.7.2, HPN-SSH through 18.2.0, ProFTPD before 1.3.8b (and before 1.3.9rc2), ORYX CycloneSSH before 2.3.4, NetSarang XShell 7 before Build 0144, CrushFTP before 10.6.0, ConnectBot SSH library before 2.2.22, Apache MINA sshd through 2.11.0, sshj through 0.37.0, TinySSH through 20230101, trilead-ssh2 6401, LANCOM LCOS and LANconfig, FileZilla before 3.66.4, Nova before 11.8, PKIX-SSH before 14.4, SecureCRT before 9.4.3, Transmit5 before 5.10.4, Win32-OpenSSH before 9.5.0.0p1-Beta, WinSCP before 6.2.2, Bitvise SSH Server before 9.32, Bitvise SSH Client before 9.33, KiTTY through 0.76.1.13, the net-ssh gem 7.2.0 for Ruby, the mscdex ssh2 module before 1.15.0 for Node.js, the thrussh library before 0.35.1 for Rust, and the Russh crate before 0.40.2 for Rust.

Vulnerability description

Vulnerabilities found for Openssh 8.0

Risk description

These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.;

Recommendation

We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.

Evidence

We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service.

PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
21/tcp open ftp Pure-FTPd

Vulnerability description

We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.

Risk description

Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.

Recommendation

We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.

Evidence

We didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.

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

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAr1fvF86KtJ2tHPiY2PIFRPpA4PVlso9n9JlJbpMARgwZlJ5gUkiNLwYKZjl0rGV5RMoa+5AjBIrowaJtUvTkSuNlYRpKeZuLkZrCioEuU1TO688FFSJL42NOCMtw3zq0XBFHYdBmyFDOLp8K3WQlm7goPCvCWEv9f+8uy05dzCTZlMyixLTIfO9WNc6LmVKNE" "ffM6NlMO0l2ZD+su++jnxNxJg3PGgyWiy87md1h6tp4zgYghPR0xdw+pQqrThSH4/Zsk/HMICw+RNWkkN5L6cab6R/05aQXfT9Qd+jjcDmeW8flyY+fDt64wIhDCRxYjCTM2XQ9IQFXyGFzeECRPQIDAQAB;"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.

Risk description

Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.

Recommendation

We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
onlinecasino358.com	A	IPv4 address	158.101.87.136
onlinecasino358.com	NS	Name server	ns2.mixhost.jp
onlinecasino358.com	NS	Name server	ns1.mixhost.jp
onlinecasino358.com	MX	Mail server	0 onlinecasino358.com
onlinecasino358.com	SOA	Start of Authority	ns1.mixhost.jp. system.mixhost.info. 2025041901 3600 1800 1209600 86400
onlinecasino358.com	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 redirect=_spf.mixhost.jp"

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.

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
onlinecasino358.com	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 redirect=_spf.mixhost.jp"

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAr1fvF86KtJ2tHPiY2PIFRPpA4PVlso9n9JlJbpMARgwZlJ5gUkiNLwYKZjl0rGV5RMoa+5AjBIrowaJtUvTkSuNlYRpKeZuLkZrCioEuU1TO688FFSJL42NOCMtw3zq0XBFHYdBmyFDOLp8K3WQlm7goPCvCWEv9f+8uy05dzCTZlMyixLTIfO9WNc6LmVKNE" "ffM6NlMO0l2ZD+su++jnxNxJg3PGgyWiy87md1h6tp4zgYghPR0xdw+pQqrThSH4/Zsk/HMICw+RNWkkN5L6cab6R/05aQXfT9Qd+jjcDmeW8flyY+fDt64wIhDCRxYjCTM2XQ9IQFXyGFzeECRPQIDAQAB;"