Vulnerability Scan Result

IP address | 209.124.66.20 |
Country | NL ![]() |
AS number | - |
Net name | - |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
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 | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
995/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
jQuery 1.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery UI | JavaScript libraries |
LiteSpeed | Web servers |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
URL | Response URL | Evidence |
---|---|---|
http://www.rundfunkpositiv.ch/ | http://www.rundfunkpositiv.ch/ | 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
Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
---|---|---|---|---|
4.3 | CVE-2012-6708 | jQuery before 1.9.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The jQuery(strInput) function does not differentiate selectors from HTML in a reliable fashion. In vulnerable versions, jQuery determined whether the input was HTML by looking for the '<' character anywhere in the string, giving attackers more flexibility when attempting to construct a malicious payload. In fixed versions, jQuery only deems the input to be HTML if it explicitly starts with the '<' character, limiting exploitability only to attackers who can control the beginning of a string, which is far less common. | jquery 1.8.3 | |
4.3 | CVE-2015-9251 | jQuery before 3.0.0 is vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting (XSS) attacks when a cross-domain Ajax request is performed without the dataType option, causing text/javascript responses to be executed. | jquery 1.8.3 | |
4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | jquery 1.8.3 | |
4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 1.8.3 | |
4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 1.8.3 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system.
Recommendation
In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.
Classification
CWE | CWE-1026 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
http://www.rundfunkpositiv.ch/ | 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
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
http://www.rundfunkpositiv.ch/ | 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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
jQuery 1.8.3 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery UI | JavaScript libraries |
LiteSpeed | Web servers |
OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
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.
Classification
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
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.
Classification
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure 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 managed to detect a publicly accessible Post Office Protocol (POP3) service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-04-13 09:25 EEST
Nmap scan report for rundfunkpositiv.ch (209.124.66.20)
Host is up (0.0064s latency).
rDNS record for 209.124.66.20: nl1-ts108.a2hosting.com
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
995/tcp open ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d
|_pop3-capabilities: SASL(PLAIN LOGIN) USER TOP CAPA AUTH-RESP-CODE RESP-CODES UIDL PIPELINING
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 6.78 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
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
rundfunkpositiv.ch | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:209.124.66.20 include:spf.a2hosting.com ~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
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=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv/l9UpM1de6yQkOQ6RP4VdXdTakV9wjkTS17Y1mstla88qexCyGn7+zp8vXiLVGPkZPD156vRYQEcUBvLU4RLFQGHz+pHlQIDdXAW0xp5oyCqu3BTZMcxKFr/QoBfvMIPUyrjCqJh9KwlId2XPjgd/iaQIP81+3R6pKR6ntVr9DSaZ3sChMLUOeLjm0si2pKz" "KLwA3julx3NBnWBpR5UWnEAtsxeiF3zKprewkAgW6Z7JvDOOVTZ1k5oW60+s41Kafz4RRlO/IjJCuUGpZ/GKVUKUAjGl7HWxINpGEMm93GfMAuwroyfhbTW3PXbBqLo+deL121yfN1EEkP0aes4aQIDAQAB;" |
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 |
---|---|---|---|
rundfunkpositiv.ch | A | IPv4 address | 209.124.66.20 |
rundfunkpositiv.ch | NS | Name server | ns3.a2hosting.com |
rundfunkpositiv.ch | NS | Name server | ns4.a2hosting.com |
rundfunkpositiv.ch | NS | Name server | ns1.a2hosting.com |
rundfunkpositiv.ch | NS | Name server | ns2.a2hosting.com |
rundfunkpositiv.ch | MX | Mail server | 0 mail.rundfunkpositiv.ch |
rundfunkpositiv.ch | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.a2hosting.com. root.nl1-ts108.a2hosting.com. 2025031401 3600 1800 1209600 86400 |
rundfunkpositiv.ch | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:209.124.66.20 include:spf.a2hosting.com ~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
DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
---|---|---|---|
default | rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv/l9UpM1de6yQkOQ6RP4VdXdTakV9wjkTS17Y1mstla88qexCyGn7+zp8vXiLVGPkZPD156vRYQEcUBvLU4RLFQGHz+pHlQIDdXAW0xp5oyCqu3BTZMcxKFr/QoBfvMIPUyrjCqJh9KwlId2XPjgd/iaQIP81+3R6pKR6ntVr9DSaZ3sChMLUOeLjm0si2pKz" "KLwA3julx3NBnWBpR5UWnEAtsxeiF3zKprewkAgW6Z7JvDOOVTZ1k5oW60+s41Kafz4RRlO/IjJCuUGpZ/GKVUKUAjGl7HWxINpGEMm93GfMAuwroyfhbTW3PXbBqLo+deL121yfN1EEkP0aes4aQIDAQAB;" |