Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | 82.165.93.136 | Malwarebytes Labs |
| Description: | Malwarebytes blocks the IP 82.165.93.136 because it was involved in port scans |
| ip_address | 192.0.66.233 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Automattic Inc |
| asn | AS2635 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Magento | Ecommerce |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Perl | Programming languages |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Plausible | Analytics |
| Selectize | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| WordPress Multisite | Hosting |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| OneTrust | Cookie compliance |
| HSTS | Security |
| Webmin | Miscellaneous |
| Weglot | Translation |
| Yoast SEO 26.1.1 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/detections/82-165-93-136 | 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 | |
| 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 Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Magento | Ecommerce |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Perl | Programming languages |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Plausible | Analytics |
| Selectize | JavaScript libraries |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| WordPress Multisite | Hosting |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| OneTrust | Cookie compliance |
| HSTS | Security |
| Webmin | Miscellaneous |
| Weglot | Translation |
| Yoast SEO 26.1.1 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
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.
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.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.malwarebytes.com | A | IPv4 address | 192.0.66.233 |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Yoast SEO Premium 25.1 | SEO |
| Yoast SEO 26.1.1 | SEO, WordPress plugins |
| WordPress Multisite | Hosting |
| Weglot | Translation |
| OneTrust | Cookie compliance |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| 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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| IPCop 2.0 (Linux 2.6.32) | 97% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection