Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Murchison-Hume Australia | Plant-Based Cleaning & Personal Care |
| Description: | Natural home cleaning & personal care products that look good enough to leave out. Non-toxic & eco friendly hand soap, surface cleaners, & cleaning tools. |
| ip_address | 23.227.38.32 |
| country | CA  |
| network_name | Cloudflare Inc |
| asn | AS13335 |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2082/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8443/tcp | https | Cloudflare http proxy - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| EasyGift | Shopify apps |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Judge.me | Reviews |
| PayPal | Payment processors |
| Shop Pay | Payment processors |
| Shopify | Ecommerce |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Klaviyo | Marketing automation |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://murchison-hume.com.au/ | localization, cart_currency, _shopify_y, _shopify_s | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: localization=AU Set-Cookie: cart_currency=AUD Set-Cookie: _shopify_y=4541be6e-4737-41ad-989a-6383dbd8db4b Set-Cookie: _shopify_s=c0bf256d-ab4b-449a-8a5d-e2b435e7d0d6 |
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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://murchison-hume.com.au/ | _shopify_y, _shopify_s | Set-Cookie: _shopify_y=4541be6e-4737-41ad-989a-6383dbd8db4b Set-Cookie: _shopify_s=c0bf256d-ab4b-449a-8a5d-e2b435e7d0d6 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://murchison-hume.com.au/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| EasyGift | Shopify apps |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Judge.me | Reviews |
| PayPal | Payment processors |
| Shop Pay | Payment processors |
| Shopify | Ecommerce |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Klaviyo | Marketing automation |
| 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
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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://murchison-hume.com.au/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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
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=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA8WTgj70vNVfAgqmj7i/47bcj9JkTTspFRlHeu7q+dHiwlNof5j4BM2WProTlqlP2Yc1KO7ghbc2k3YmKJFugH85fhW7o1ZkV+HK/lE/tcrBzgy518Tp8KAYcdLkYM3+8UdjZgcPQbWF2EzlUD9mZ209lLsnnCuPbOWwPRA27rXiAM1ouJQDW9s2Ris0x2RGcm" "BCTx+S5t7d/P3Me6+qiv2VwoIL0lck5MduC7i6j57nTYsVZueLzKwyo2euFlzht2kcnmk5vYcDtJuEFWlP8HIT9timZWsbhwpwEVYRa64xSfn1kW6fu3hGdt37iM8hne6ZmFZvd8y4lWfnSmpX7cwIDAQAB;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| murchison-hume.com.au | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:103.127.41.126 ip4:103.127.41.19 ip4:103.127.41.19 include:spf.syd.digitalhost.com +a +mx +ip4:116.206.230.56 +ip4:116.206.230.57 +include:_spf.google.com include:relay.mailchannels.net ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| murchison-hume.com.au | A | IPv4 address | 23.227.38.32 |
| murchison-hume.com.au | NS | Name server | dns1.digitalhost.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | NS | Name server | dns3.digitalhost.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | NS | Name server | dns2.digitalhost.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| murchison-hume.com.au | SOA | Start of Authority | dns1.digitalhost.com. root.digitalhost.net. 2025072401 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
| murchison-hume.com.au | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:103.127.41.126 ip4:103.127.41.19 ip4:103.127.41.19 include:spf.syd.digitalhost.com +a +mx +ip4:116.206.230.56 +ip4:116.206.230.57 +include:_spf.google.com include:relay.mailchannels.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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| 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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA8WTgj70vNVfAgqmj7i/47bcj9JkTTspFRlHeu7q+dHiwlNof5j4BM2WProTlqlP2Yc1KO7ghbc2k3YmKJFugH85fhW7o1ZkV+HK/lE/tcrBzgy518Tp8KAYcdLkYM3+8UdjZgcPQbWF2EzlUD9mZ209lLsnnCuPbOWwPRA27rXiAM1ouJQDW9s2Ris0x2RGcm" "BCTx+S5t7d/P3Me6+qiv2VwoIL0lck5MduC7i6j57nTYsVZueLzKwyo2euFlzht2kcnmk5vYcDtJuEFWlP8HIT9timZWsbhwpwEVYRa64xSfn1kW6fu3hGdt37iM8hne6ZmFZvd8y4lWfnSmpX7cwIDAQAB;" |
| rsa | 1296 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDsCAXOBe4zKu0uAkpFjwCY1FLjHLg164d+OBIkRGAZoWrdah5Y6JP4SpQfuzeVjChWdIqTQ5tp8qeX5vcgzJIYaOCOT8q2Tyu4y2MbIJpiJIWVEpzZwojTb0+0HAgXXY6OQlOrZ6A8j33iAm0h7KPoyJUcxsX+aBClTzjO4UagGwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Shopify | Ecommerce |
| EasyGift | Shopify apps |
| Shop Pay | Payment processors |
| PayPal | Payment processors |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Klaviyo | Marketing automation |
| Judge.me | Reviews |
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.