Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 34.49.68.121 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Google LLC |
| asn | AS396982 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.217 | Analytics |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| LiveChat | Live chat |
| WhatsApp Business Chat | Live chat |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://dirgawin88bos.website/register | 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-693 |
| 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).
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Facebook Pixel 2.9.217 | Analytics |
| core-js 3.32.2 | JavaScript libraries |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Sentry | Issue trackers |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| LiveChat | Live chat |
| WhatsApp Business Chat | Live chat |
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
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://dirgawin88bos.website/register?ref=HHAEAB00001 | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: HEAD, GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-16 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Next.js | JavaScript frameworks, Web frameworks, Web servers, Static site generator |
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud Trace | Performance |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| HTTP/3 | 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| dirgawin88bos.website | A | IPv4 address | 34.49.68.121 |
| dirgawin88bos.website | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b2.googledomains.com |
| dirgawin88bos.website | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b4.googledomains.com |
| dirgawin88bos.website | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b3.googledomains.com |
| dirgawin88bos.website | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com |
| dirgawin88bos.website | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-cloud-b1.googledomains.com. cloud-dns-hostmaster.google.com. 1 21600 3600 259200 300 |
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.