Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Abundance Global Temple of Wellness |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 196.22.132.8 |
| Country | ZA  |
| AS number | AS37153 |
| Net name | Xneelo Ltd |
21/tcp | ftp | ProFTPD - |
22/tcp | ssh | - - |
25/tcp | nagios-nsca | Nagios NSCA - |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
465/tcp | nagios-nsca | Nagios NSCA - |
587/tcp | nagios-nsca | Nagios NSCA - |
993/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
995/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Elementor 3.28.3 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| WordPress 6.8 | CMS, Blogs |
| Kadence WP Kadence 1.2.21 | WordPress themes |
| Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Response URL | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| http://globaltempleofwellness.com/ | http://globaltempleofwellness.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://globaltempleofwellness.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://globaltempleofwellness.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://globaltempleofwellness.com/ | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Elementor 3.28.3 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| WordPress 6.8 | CMS, Blogs |
| Kadence WP Kadence 1.2.21 | WordPress themes |
| Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| 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.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible SSH service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-04-17 17:22 EEST
Nmap scan report for globaltempleofwellness.com (196.22.132.8)
Host is up (0.16s latency).
rDNS record for 196.22.132.8: www8.jnb1.host-h.net
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
22/tcp open ssh (protocol 2.0)
| ssh-auth-methods:
| Supported authentication methods:
|_ password
| fingerprint-strings:
| NULL:
| SSH-2.0-FTP Service
| Zcurve25519-sha256,curve25519-sha256@libssh.org,ecdh-sha2-nistp521,ecdh-sha2-nistp384,ecdh-sha2-nistp256,diffie-hellman-group18-sha512,diffie-hellman-group16-sha512,diffie-hellman-group14-sha256,diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256,diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha1,diffie-hellman-group14-sha1,rsa1024-sha1,ext-info-s,kex-strict-s-v00@openssh.com
| !rsa-sha2-512,rsa-sha2-256,ssh-rsa
| _aes256-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes128-ctr,aes256-cbc,aes192-cbc,aes128-cbc,cast128-cbc,3des-ctr,3des-cbc
| _aes256-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes128-ctr,aes256-cbc,aes192-cbc,aes128-cbc,cast128-cbc,3des-ctr,3des-cbc
| Fhmac-sha2-256,hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha1,hmac-sha1-96,umac-64@openssh.com
| Fhmac-sha2-256,hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha1,hmac-sha1-96,umac-64@openssh.com
| zlib@openssh.com,zlib,none
|_ zlib@openssh.com,zlib,none
1 service unrecognized despite returning data. If you know the service/version, please submit the following fingerprint at https://nmap.org/cgi-bin/submit.cgi?new-service :
SF-Port22-TCP:V=7.93%I=7%D=4/17%Time=68010EC9%P=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu%r(NULL
SF:,355,"SSH-2\.0-FTP\x20Service\r\n\0\0\x03<\x04\x14\xb5be\x99\xf1\xb3\xa
SF:e\xa6\x91\xc3R\xc6\+\xc5\xe4s\0\0\x01Zcurve25519-sha256,curve25519-sha2
SF:56@libssh\.org,ecdh-sha2-nistp521,ecdh-sha2-nistp384,ecdh-sha2-nistp256
SF:,diffie-hellman-group18-sha512,diffie-hellman-group16-sha512,diffie-hel
SF:lman-group14-sha256,diffie-hellman-group-exchange-sha256,diffie-hellman
SF:-group-exchange-sha1,diffie-hellman-group14-sha1,rsa1024-sha1,ext-info-
SF:s,kex-strict-s-v00@openssh\.com\0\0\0!rsa-sha2-512,rsa-sha2-256,ssh-rsa
SF:\0\0\0_aes256-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes128-ctr,aes256-cbc,aes192-cbc,aes128-cb
SF:c,cast128-cbc,3des-ctr,3des-cbc\0\0\0_aes256-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes128-ctr,
SF:aes256-cbc,aes192-cbc,aes128-cbc,cast128-cbc,3des-ctr,3des-cbc\0\0\0Fhm
SF:ac-sha2-256,hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha1,hmac-sha1-96,umac-64@openssh\.com\0
SF:\0\0Fhmac-sha2-256,hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha1,hmac-sha1-96,umac-64@openssh
SF:\.com\0\0\0\x1azlib@openssh\.com,zlib,none\0\0\0\x1azlib@openssh\.com,z
SF:lib,none\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0R;\x84\xa4");
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 8.59 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the SSH service with username/password authentication is publicly accessible. Network administrators often use remote administration protocols to control devices like switches, routers, and other essential systems. However, allowing these services to be accessible via the Internet can increase security risks, creating potential opportunities for attacks on the organization.
Risk description
Exposing this service online with username/password authentication can enable attackers to launch authentication attacks, like guessing login credentials, and potentially gaining unauthorized access. Vulnerabilities, such as unpatched software, protocol flaws, or backdoors could also be exploited. An example is the CVE-2024-3094 (XZ Utils Backdoor) vulnerability.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off SSH with username/password authentication access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the SSH service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, it is advisable to utilize SSH Public Key Authentication since it employs a key pair to verify the identity of a user or process.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service.
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
21/tcp open ftp ProFTPDVulnerability 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 managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-04-17 17:23 EEST
Nmap scan report for globaltempleofwellness.com (196.22.132.8)
Host is up (0.16s latency).
rDNS record for 196.22.132.8: www8.jnb1.host-h.net
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
995/tcp open ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d
|_pop3-capabilities: TOP AUTH-RESP-CODE PIPELINING RESP-CODES CAPA UIDL USER SASL(PLAIN LOGIN)
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 8.35 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the Post Office Protocol (POP3) service is publicly accessible and doesn’t include STARTTLS capability. Email clients use the Post Office Protocol (POP) to download emails for user accounts. Some POP servers are initially set up to operate over an unsecured protocol. When email clients download email content through this plaintext protocol, it can pose a substantial risk to the organization's network, especially depending on which user account is set to receive the emails.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to conduct man-in-the-middle attacks, thereby gaining access to sensitive user credentials and the contents of emails. Given that POP3 operates via a plaintext protocol, the entirety of the data exchanged between the client and server is left unencrypted. This critical information could then be leveraged in further attacks on the organization's network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off POP3 access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the POP3 service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, activating STARTTLS capability (switching the connection to a secure communication) or utilizing Secure POP3 (POP3S) is recommended, as this protocol employs encryption.
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
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| globaltempleofwellness.com | A | IPv4 address | 196.22.132.8 |
| globaltempleofwellness.com | NS | Name server | ns1.host-h.net |
| globaltempleofwellness.com | NS | Name server | ns1.dns-h.com |
| globaltempleofwellness.com | NS | Name server | ns2.host-h.net |
| globaltempleofwellness.com | NS | Name server | ns2.dns-h.com |
| globaltempleofwellness.com | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.globaltempleofwellness.com |
| globaltempleofwellness.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.host-h.net. postmaster.globaltempleofwellness.com. 2025041701 86400 1800 3600000 86400 |
| globaltempleofwellness.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx a include:spf.host-h.net ?all" |
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
Vulnerability description
OS detection couldn't determine the operating system.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| globaltempleofwellness.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 mx a include:spf.host-h.net ?all" |