Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | ã¹ãã¢ãã£ãã·ã³ã° VS ãã£ãã·ã³ã° | MailData |
| Description: | ã¹ãã¢ãã£ãã·ã³ã°ã¨ãã£ãã·ã³ã°ã両è ã®éãã«ã¤ãã¦ã¾ã¨ãã¾ãããã¾ããããããã身ãå®ãæ¹æ³ã«ã¤ãã¦ã解説ãã¦ãã¾ãã |
| ip_address | 92.223.124.62 |
| country | DE  |
| network_name | G Core Labs S.A |
| asn | AS199524 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Linkedin Ads | Advertising |
| Gcore | CDN |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Leadfeeder | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Linkedin Ads | Advertising |
| Gcore | CDN |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Leadfeeder | Analytics |
| 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://maildata.jp/blog/blog-2023-07-21.html | 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
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://maildata.jp/blog/ | GET | Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 | Email Address: dmarcreport@microsoft.com |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://maildata.jp/blog/blog-2023-01-26.html | GET | Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 | Operating system paths found in the HTTP response: |
Vulnerability description
We found operating system paths returned in a HTTP response.
Risk description
The risk is that path disclosure may help an attacker learn more about the remote server's file system, thus increasing the effectiveness and precision of any future attacks.
Recommendation
Configure the web server to avoid leaking path information by using generic error messages that do not reveal any internal file paths. Make sure no server file is referred with its absolute path in the website code.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://maildata.jp/blog/blog-2023-07-21.html | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,POST,OPTIONS,HEAD,TRACE` 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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.gcorelabs.net, ns2.gcdn.services
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.maildata.jp | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:h4ncv2agl0@rua.powerdmarc.com; ruf=mailto:h4ncv2agl0@ruf.powerdmarc.com; pct=100; fo=1;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| maildata.jp | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| maildata.jp | A | IPv4 address | 92.223.124.62 |
| maildata.jp | NS | Name server | ns1.gcorelabs.net |
| maildata.jp | NS | Name server | ns2.gcdn.services |
| maildata.jp | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.gcorelabs.net. gcore.spelldata.co.jp. 1756652230 0 3600 1209600 300 |
| maildata.jp | TXT | Text record | "openai-domain-verification=dv-zGQHJzxPNZ4n2WrBmxFRQugw" |
| maildata.jp | TXT | Text record | "facebook-domain-verification=x809uxaxr6ltjbwxvqbcjwbknbaoer" |
| maildata.jp | TXT | Text record | "pinterest-site-verification=ec4a5c737d6c9df59751f7e3bcc9b38f" |
| maildata.jp | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=poQaMQOhGM0bqGTwskWqqkxKaPp7vlK-aSTqOCvnQhE" |
| maildata.jp | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
| _dmarc.maildata.jp | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; rua=mailto:h4ncv2agl0@rua.powerdmarc.com; ruf=mailto:h4ncv2agl0@ruf.powerdmarc.com; pct=100; fo=1;" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Oracle VM Server 3.4.2 (Linux 4.1) | 92% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Linkedin Ads | Advertising |
| Leadfeeder | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| Gcore | CDN |
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.