Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://lawprac.net/

Scanned target: https://lawprac.net/

Submitted: May 23, 2025 from LT

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

high

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	Law Practice Direct Mail Marketing \| LawPrac.net
Description:	LawPrac.net is innovative in approach to delivering direct mail marketing resources to attorneys. It is committed to assisting lawyers in providing information about their legal services effectively and promptly.

IP Information

IP address	190.92.140.15
Country	US
AS number	-
Net name	-

Open Ports

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 -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Google Hosted Libraries	CDN
Bootstrap 3.3.4	UI frameworks
Google Analytics UA	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
jQuery 1.9.1	JavaScript libraries
LiteSpeed	Web servers
PHP 7.0.33	Programming languages
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security
YouTube	Video players

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

CVSS	CVE	Summary	Affected software
7.5	CVE-2017-8923	The zend_string_extend function in Zend/zend_string.h in PHP through 7.1.5 does not prevent changes to string objects that result in a negative length, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging a script's use of .= with a long string.	php 7.0.33
7.5	CVE-2017-9225	An issue was discovered in Oniguruma 6.2.0, as used in Oniguruma-mod in Ruby through 2.4.1 and mbstring in PHP through 7.1.5. A stack out-of-bounds write in onigenc_unicode_get_case_fold_codes_by_str() occurs during regular expression compilation. Code point 0xFFFFFFFF is not properly handled in unicode_unfold_key(). A malformed regular expression could result in 4 bytes being written off the end of a stack buffer of expand_case_fold_string() during the call to onigenc_unicode_get_case_fold_codes_by_str(), a typical stack buffer overflow.	php 7.0.33
7.5	CVE-2017-9120	PHP 7.x through 7.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string because of an Integer overflow in mysqli_real_escape_string.	php 7.0.33
7.5	CVE-2019-9020	An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. Invalid input to the function xmlrpc_decode() can lead to an invalid memory access (heap out of bounds read or read after free). This is related to xml_elem_parse_buf in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xml_element.c.	php 7.0.33
7.5	CVE-2019-9021	An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. A heap-based buffer over-read in PHAR reading functions in the PHAR extension may allow an attacker to read allocated or unallocated memory past the actual data when trying to parse the file name, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-20783. This is related to phar_detect_phar_fname_ext in ext/phar/phar.c.	php 7.0.33
6.4	CVE-2024-6484	A vulnerability has been identified in Bootstrap that exposes users to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks. The issue is present in the carousel component, where the data-slide and data-slide-to attributes can be exploited through the href attribute of an <a> tag due to inadequate sanitization. This vulnerability could potentially enable attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript within the victim's browser.	bootstrap 3.3.4
4.3	CVE-2018-14040	In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the collapse data-parent attribute.	bootstrap 3.3.4
4.3	CVE-2018-14042	In Bootstrap before 4.1.2, XSS is possible in the data-container property of tooltip.	bootstrap 3.3.4
4.3	CVE-2016-10735	In Bootstrap 3.x before 3.4.0 and 4.x-beta before 4.0.0-beta.2, XSS is possible in the data-target attribute, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-14041.	bootstrap 3.3.4
4.3	CVE-2018-20676	In Bootstrap before 3.4.0, XSS is possible in the tooltip data-viewport attribute.	bootstrap 3.3.4
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 1.9.1
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 1.9.1
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 1.9.1
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 1.9.1

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	Cookie Name	Evidence
https://lawprac.net/	PHPSESSID	The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=kt0qs0o3kc0noknb0ejes5tj77

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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://lawprac.net/	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	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://lawprac.net/	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 Hosted Libraries	CDN
Bootstrap 3.3.4	UI frameworks
Google Analytics UA	Analytics
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
jQuery 1.9.1	JavaScript libraries
LiteSpeed	Web servers
PHP 7.0.33	Programming languages
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security
YouTube	Video players

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

URL
https://lawprac.net/robots.txt

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).

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Evidence

URL	Method	Parameters	Evidence
https://lawprac.net/privacy	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 Cookies: PHPSESSID=imad1ku3qpg9l8ogr3og9bcrv7	Email Address: support@lawprac.net

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	A6: Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A4: Insecure Design

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://lawprac.net/.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

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 2025-05-23 21:05 EEST
Nmap scan report for lawprac.net (190.92.140.15)
Host is up (0.15s latency).
rDNS record for 190.92.140.15: 190.92.140.15.static.a2webhosting.com

PORT    STATE SERVICE  VERSION
995/tcp open  ssl/pop3 Dovecot pop3d
|_pop3-capabilities: AUTH-RESP-CODE UIDL RESP-CODES CAPA USER SASL(PLAIN LOGIN) TOP PIPELINING

Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 9.04 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
lawprac.net	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:68.66.226.104 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=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAyjc7Cc9MAzCoVs0Tv+hv1G4wHpX8Gr9oINDPaZ0Nh6aTNsJSp0gIeYKhMWnezcwq9Bb1ZUjoFkx6KRvzHd3U2RosglZ3bgyWzO2wbYYKIQbS2MMaM0LcQLH1ZbMHgg5BM/V3MjSK8KLYKyeX/yi37kJZWmbsveI3561gv1yE/5/GXWDY/E1M/I8/SpfCej/0X" "9+ri8P6Cbh5MrzfTEVyKDPkgspRdIDpxHoV4uUN+haMl7oWvvl1itaZbFPWLR45Tu3hXMNMXZGrbjrWE1sWYhfDKoAbM0Lh7qZjoOPWAajKH8XsQs87pYBLFtot7Ups790U+ciJAYPlrQsJQ3xYAQIDAQAB;"

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
lawprac.net	A	IPv4 address	190.92.140.15
lawprac.net	NS	Name server	ns2.a2hosting.com
lawprac.net	NS	Name server	ns4.a2hosting.com
lawprac.net	NS	Name server	ns1.a2hosting.com
lawprac.net	NS	Name server	ns3.a2hosting.com
lawprac.net	MX	Mail server	0 mail.lawprac.net
lawprac.net	SOA	Start of Authority	ns1.a2hosting.com. root.az1-ts7.a2hosting.com. 2025052305 3600 1800 1209600 86400
lawprac.net	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:68.66.226.104 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.

Operating System	Accuracy
HP P2000 G3 NAS device	93%

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1422	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAyjc7Cc9MAzCoVs0Tv+hv1G4wHpX8Gr9oINDPaZ0Nh6aTNsJSp0gIeYKhMWnezcwq9Bb1ZUjoFkx6KRvzHd3U2RosglZ3bgyWzO2wbYYKIQbS2MMaM0LcQLH1ZbMHgg5BM/V3MjSK8KLYKyeX/yi37kJZWmbsveI3561gv1yE/5/GXWDY/E1M/I8/SpfCej/0X" "9+ri8P6Cbh5MrzfTEVyKDPkgspRdIDpxHoV4uUN+haMl7oWvvl1itaZbFPWLR45Tu3hXMNMXZGrbjrWE1sWYhfDKoAbM0Lh7qZjoOPWAajKH8XsQs87pYBLFtot7Ups790U+ciJAYPlrQsJQ3xYAQIDAQAB;"