Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

http://cedia.org.ec/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://cedia.org.ec/

Submitted: May 11, 2026 from EC

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Screenshot could not be taken.

Title:	CEDIA
Description:	No description found

IP Information

ip_address	190.15.133.6
country	EC
network_name	CEDIA
asn	Custom Electronic Design & Installation Association

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	nginx -
443/tcp	https	nginx -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Plesk	Hosting panels

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://cedia.org.ec:443/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://cedia.org.ec:443/	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-1021
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://cedia.org.ec:443/	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
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Plesk	Hosting panels

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

CWE	CWE-200
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://cedia.org.ec:443/	Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header

Vulnerability description

We noticed that the target application lacks the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header in its responses. This security header is crucial as it instructs browsers to only establish secure (HTTPS) connections with the web server and reject any HTTP connections.

Risk description

The risk is that lack of this header permits an attacker to force a victim user to initiate a clear-text HTTP connection to the server, thus opening the possibility to eavesdrop on the network traffic and extract sensitive information (e.g. session cookies).

Recommendation

The Strict-Transport-Security HTTP header should be sent with each HTTPS response. The syntax is as follows: `Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=<seconds>[; includeSubDomains]` The parameter `max-age` gives the time frame for requirement of HTTPS in seconds and should be chosen quite high, e.g. several months. A value below 7776000 is considered as too low by this scanner check. The flag `includeSubDomains` defines that the policy applies also for sub domains of the sender of the response.

Classification

CWE	CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://cedia.org.ec:443/.well-known/security.txt

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

CWE	CWE-1188
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL	Method	Summary
https://cedia.org.ec:443/	OPTIONS	We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: HEAD,GET,POST,OPTIONS` 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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; ri=3600; fo=1; rua=mailto:a.knml9sas@sdmarc.net,mailto:ay9rkfnjy4@rua.powerdmarc.com; ruf=mailto:ay9rkfnjy4@ruf.powerdmarc.com; aspf=s"

Vulnerability description

We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.

Risk description

While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.

Recommendation

We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; ri=3600; fo=1; rua=mailto:a.knml9sas@sdmarc.net,mailto:ay9rkfnjy4@rua.powerdmarc.com; ruf=mailto:ay9rkfnjy4@ruf.powerdmarc.com; aspf=s"

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

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
k2	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAv2aC2KjGKLOwTweBY5A9RpjsxaBXR9r7OAU6U8/zn92ivImI75naUujWbItRI/QmL1jy5PWGqLwoUA0b90ObWaLDc+i9MtTNmGeWO009hr20fIxhGg6XBT2kjZ1DTThopSe1nAndsupmcBwlQ5Q6LJ+ZAxLcujnPIxM0ZBLmgpkv8u6RfY4eFP8OLvdAW3oSu" "B0DyLDigQX4Sj8wBO4YIdQH6AAmBeOsidsKAFNFUCpc3vCxtBDR12U+cBg724l3sBkMQ8evnz6idnqxq9QAVYh8k4kJ+RP+6cqTdy7LjIm8xY/bQNpQIpGUAuDo2DjLcCDun9DAI4Q/3z+Q0o9QuQIDAQAB;"
k3	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAsYGiMSn7fsUqSvfSX40x9R1OlRtbNiCY80lHRIlcKx3XDIR7257aUx+q9CSIARdfTL6KCuLGNFx5g9TgVr6png4ajcieSQGtOehBgxnkDN8aAA5TX0FmFrcefJU0JoxLOF09EKgXxhSSHCk/ekVb0PXSboHXoZ9+EI404F1qhcwXXIgHXTaUthHTut2P6BBZh" "IXIgvDe/w49GchR7MRJqjNb7neEBbYHbgWuBTvvHCg7Gy6m6n9krYK+ROWq3dVvXy9plAGK3ygM+HtjIiMt7arRGMOF0WgDTz7YdN9BGpt6BvXxLnjiQcgS5T9n+cIyPZgiWzDMXNlaEEdKTEKxrwIDAQAB;"
mandrill	rsa	1296	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCrLHiExVd55zd/IQ/J/mRwSRMAocV/hMB3jXwaHH36d9NaVynQFYV8NaWi69c1veUtRzGt7yAioXqLj7Z4TeEUoOLgrKsn8YnckGs9i3B3tVFB+Ch/4mPhXWiNfNdynHWBcPcbJ8kjEQ2U8y78dHZj1YeRXXVvWob2OaKynO8/lQIDAQAB;"
s1	rsa	1446	"k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA10onRtcr4fuQkEGZIv4Z4PtVzt6YMERqtRmQLt/Zk4xDwtkQp1vbkaeJx2mPi578GaZILVTE90azyu3tgFo0R5T2muGU1tireJf3fJmWr/HYaNwmMsQFd0vCVmmtzvKke0szIbI+KcbPmT0Q1KdcgcJImrsLpvab6ksntinSNqjB4gXt9zebCBlVpc7pw/63pWU+q" "xbNNEi64WueKS7xQlqUA5BfQEWMG62AIYCjH2SaBWq1VFtc/Pf3kSd8T47alkUgRHy8XnxkosBFfG10lmpjEA9YvgXQEh6+IrhUxQmiNb6KdDlHgk5FitSSeSWzmNgXebURFg8Jwpmio9eytQIDAQAB"
s2	rsa	1446	"k=rsa; t=s; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAyMqoajmV2q5kI7/WoBoEo+Q1zCq8CFrtAC6a56YVYKM8ZapuSvOyk1voB0jpW7zzEbXMNO5G9vbmNtO2E2XLpqgokfDaFGjxkRqGAVAXOMXuChESm3nofv6qbl2jOQOfqbLqApv/yZ7zST1W9/3d86TtsEnnhGs03YzXaQRkm1g2C9815a8HjJEj2PZLinUeZ1o8X" "Sq5bOeP53qlInz79e7m5zvBEhxVdorZfo2i2airtTNenebXdw8a5bDYfpx/9DoOF6JEbOw7Ug5+OxyIcXgFP1eVwS48RB5NOy2EvPX9VJ++j0tBLL5Ugoqy9tIcTLuKebVlCUaFki+6gzWIiQIDAQAB"
selector1	rsa	1296	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDV6qLGKQ6awNjypSkLexoitclxbn/0IL7Ov3yEYM9ygXN4a6jBSG2x1MGp61s2aZqnfkK0KqVZdQW2aUnMDvsWUSKIbMkNUBItAkhCMarEj5ODu9L7Jm6wBiEQZey8igJ8A+Bq33gEXDTEbqq0LACsiezCyofHimH4ffPsN/vq6QIDAQAB;"
smtp	rsa	1296	"k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCyP4JLcpZll7fTE3GRCNvVLSyzpU98cKpate8J4fZaIFkDTD9w5QEcL2S+23wkOiGIBrpcvDYAg5PlDwywmExGaBVXGy+wSnRQArSUkwsQ7f7N0MkheH8vvjvQyqW4/C8gykpDGjAxq5ABYzbsdQCCVDf8VmIg+AHOxwBOkox3kwIDAQAB"

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
cedia.org.ec	A	IPv4 address	190.15.133.6
cedia.org.ec	NS	Name server	ns1.cedia.org.ec
cedia.org.ec	NS	Name server	dns.cedia.org.ec
cedia.org.ec	NS	Name server	ns2.cedia.org.ec
cedia.org.ec	MX	Mail server	0 fortispam.cedia.org.ec
cedia.org.ec	SOA	Start of Authority	dns.cedia.org.ec. neg.cedia.org.ec. 2024062985 900 600 1800 1800
cedia.org.ec	AAAA	IPv6 address	2800:68:1:c3d1::3
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"11tftebl5k288rq77h641mnqho"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"KH4YYXRJX8PN4UUNJ146DQQXAAI7SQILDIKGLICB"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"ieti40mqcn8pkartvgiqdqndic"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"MS=ms34590867"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"4smqh2i8t062omugifq27k2il3"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"kk0ekc6u3j9qgvuliga7osho6r"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"q81hb86evjfes8odg8veq52qir"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=-FsCS1Dc3Vos4E6Q86IWFLaTY9XxRKHZW190Q2-f_JM"
cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"have-i-been-pwned-verification=d90d5d5edbce7cad55abe7d90cce7bbe"
cedia.org.ec	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 redirect=_sknml9sas.sdmarc.net"
_dmarc.cedia.org.ec	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; ri=3600; fo=1; rua=mailto:a.knml9sas@sdmarc.net,mailto:ay9rkfnjy4@rua.powerdmarc.com; ruf=mailto:ay9rkfnjy4@ruf.powerdmarc.com; aspf=s"

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
Plesk	Hosting panels
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies

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.