Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | CARRIERE Systems – The Solutions Company |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 199.188.200.110 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Namecheap Inc |
| asn | AS22612 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
26/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
53/tcp | domain | - - |
80/tcp | http | - - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
2078/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2080/tcp | https | cPanel httpd - |
2082/tcp | http | - - |
2083/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Elementor 3.23.4 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Gutenberg | WordPress plugins, Editors |
| jQuery Migrate | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.19.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WooCommerce 8.2.2 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| WordPress 6.2.6 | CMS, Blogs |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| LiteSpeed Cache | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Lodash 1.13.6 | JavaScript libraries |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.2 | CVE-2022-4900 | A vulnerability was found in PHP where setting the environment variable PHP_CLI_SERVER_WORKERS to a large value leads to a heap buffer overflow. | php 7.4.33 | |
| 6.1 | CVE-2025-5062 | The WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PostMessage-Based Cross-Site Scripting via the 'customize-store' page in all versions up to, and including, 9.4.2 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on PostMessage data. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | woocommerce 8.2.2 | |
| 5.3 | CVE-2024-9944 | The WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to HTML Injection in all versions up to, and including, 9.0.2. This is due to the plugin not properly neutralizing HTML elements from submitted order forms. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary HTML that will render when the administrator views order form submissions. | woocommerce 8.2.2 | |
| 5.3 | CVE-2024-5458 | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. | php 7.4.33 | |
| 4.3 | CVE-2023-52222 | Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Automattic WooCommerce.This issue affects WooCommerce: from n/a through 8.2.2. | woocommerce 8.2.2 |
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. Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed 'high' severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application's web server presents an SSL/TLS certificate that is not trusted by web browsers. This issue typically arises when the server uses a self-signed certificate, a certificate from an untrusted authority, or a certificate that has expired or is invalid for other reasons. The lack of a trusted certificate makes it challenging for users to verify the authenticity of the server, undermining the security of the SSL/TLS connection.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could easily mount a man-in-the-middle attack in order to sniff the SSL communication by presenting the user a fake SSL certificate.
Recommendation
We recommend you to configure a trusted SSL certificate for the web server. Examples of how to configure SSL for various servers for Apache and Nginx are referenced.
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://carrieresystems.net/wp-content/uploads/ | Found output resembling directory listing. |
| https://carrieresystems.net/wp-includes/js | Found output resembling directory listing. |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's web server is affected by a Directory Listing vulnerability in its URL structure. Directory listing is enabled due to misconfigured server settings, allowing attackers to view all files and subdirectories on the server.
Risk description
The risk is that it's often the case that sensitive files are "hidden" among public files in that location and attackers can use this vulnerability to access them.
Recommendation
We recommend reconfiguring the web server in order to deny directory listing. Furthermore, you should verify that there are no sensitive files at the mentioned URLs.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-548 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://carrieresystems.net/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://carrieresystems.net/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://carrieresystems.net/ | 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 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Elementor 3.23.4 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Gutenberg | WordPress plugins, Editors |
| jQuery Migrate | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.19.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| WooCommerce 8.2.2 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| WordPress 6.2.6 | CMS, Blogs |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| LiteSpeed Cache | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| Lodash 1.13.6 | JavaScript libraries |
| RSS | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://carrieresystems.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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://carrieresystems.net/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: OPTIONS,HEAD,GET,POST` 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 |
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
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://carrieresystems.net/wp-json/wp/v2/ | 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 | Possible API endpoint found at |
Vulnerability description
We found API endpoints while crawling the given web application.
Risk description
These endpoints may represent an attack surface for malicious actors interested in API-specific vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Use the API Scanner to perform a more thorough vulnerability check for these endpoints, if an API specification is present.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-4900 | 6.2 | 0.0009 | 0.26686 | No | A vulnerability was found in PHP where setting the environment variable PHP_CLI_SERVER_WORKERS to a large value leads to a heap buffer overflow. |
| CVE-2024-5458 | 5.3 | 0.024 | 0.84398 | No | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 7.4.33
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-5062 | 6.1 | 0.00184 | 0.40596 | No | The WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PostMessage-Based Cross-Site Scripting via the 'customize-store' page in all versions up to, and including, 9.4.2 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on PostMessage data. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| CVE-2024-9944 | 5.3 | 0.00145 | 0.35704 | No | The WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to HTML Injection in all versions up to, and including, 9.0.2. This is due to the plugin not properly neutralizing HTML elements from submitted order forms. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary HTML that will render when the administrator views order form submissions. |
| CVE-2023-52222 | 4.3 | 0.00199 | 0.42384 | No | Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Automattic WooCommerce.This issue affects WooCommerce: from n/a through 8.2.2. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WooCommerce 8.2.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-5062 | 6.1 | 0.00184 | 0.40596 | No | The WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PostMessage-Based Cross-Site Scripting via the 'customize-store' page in all versions up to, and including, 9.4.2 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on PostMessage data. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| CVE-2024-9944 | 5.3 | 0.00145 | 0.35704 | No | The WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to HTML Injection in all versions up to, and including, 9.0.2. This is due to the plugin not properly neutralizing HTML elements from submitted order forms. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary HTML that will render when the administrator views order form submissions. |
| CVE-2023-52222 | 4.3 | 0.00199 | 0.42384 | No | Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Automattic WooCommerce.This issue affects WooCommerce: from n/a through 8.2.2. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WooCommerce 8.2.2
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2022-4900 | 6.2 | 0.0009 | 0.26686 | No | A vulnerability was found in PHP where setting the environment variable PHP_CLI_SERVER_WORKERS to a large value leads to a heap buffer overflow. |
| CVE-2024-5458 | 5.3 | 0.024 | 0.84398 | No | In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 7.4.33
Risk description
These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect that PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 7.4.33 End-of-life date: 2022-11-28 Latest version for the cycle: 7.4.33 This release cycle (7.4) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2019-11-28 and its latest release date was 2022-11-03. The support ended on 2021-11-28.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrieresystems.net | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:199.188.200.106 +ip4:199.188.200.108 include:spf.web-hosting.com +ip4:199.188.200.110 +ip4:199.188.200.112 ~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 managed to detect that WordPress has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 6.2.6 End-of-life date: 2023-08-08 Latest version for the cycle: 6.2.6 This release cycle (6.2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2023-03-29 and its latest release date was 2024-06-24.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
We managed to detect that PHP has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 7.4.33 End-of-life date: 2022-11-28 Latest version for the cycle: 7.4.33 This release cycle (7.4) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2019-11-28 and its latest release date was 2022-11-03. The support ended on 2021-11-28.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrieresystems.net | TXT | Text record | "MAltYWlsLmNhcnJpZXJlc3lzdGVtcy5uZXQuCg==" |
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=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAvAFBaVxkhRmk1niJKzcoK7u5o0pkc0rWOwoNw4b+/YCL0aoE1TBVF5L+jmVKgMyG4kS5NkUCBnLG7sV0CLA+4Kr2C3eLRRj33uBnQ+5EOiUE9nKlERTVmBwwbysoEz57/WXoyOrwZBB0f4hZTDJ0QwYrJPP7GXY/W9/rXSIr5b7r+CDJhe1jadXGurri1skum" "5BumonE8xb+och8B5iFtbOFGOsxs7D38GYgX3vZZIxVUFq2XzqDjF49OjOWMvaO97WHDzb6WLGhzuCunPsedvLk5OGU+y4fxmsU4UdLtfOAXbZ5WqN+RyfJtCZOxCkRweXj1ST+O/41pQKzHmyfRwIDAQAB;" |
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: dns1.namecheaphosting.com, dns2.namecheaphosting.com
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Basic | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.2.6 | CMS, Blogs |
| Gutenberg | WordPress plugins, Editors |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| Elementor 3.23.4 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| LiteSpeed Cache | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| WooCommerce 8.2.2 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| jQuery Migrate | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Underscore.js 1.13.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| RSS | 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=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAvAFBaVxkhRmk1niJKzcoK7u5o0pkc0rWOwoNw4b+/YCL0aoE1TBVF5L+jmVKgMyG4kS5NkUCBnLG7sV0CLA+4Kr2C3eLRRj33uBnQ+5EOiUE9nKlERTVmBwwbysoEz57/WXoyOrwZBB0f4hZTDJ0QwYrJPP7GXY/W9/rXSIr5b7r+CDJhe1jadXGurri1skum" "5BumonE8xb+och8B5iFtbOFGOsxs7D38GYgX3vZZIxVUFq2XzqDjF49OjOWMvaO97WHDzb6WLGhzuCunPsedvLk5OGU+y4fxmsU4UdLtfOAXbZ5WqN+RyfJtCZOxCkRweXj1ST+O/41pQKzHmyfRwIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| carrieresystems.net | A | IPv4 address | 199.188.200.110 |
| carrieresystems.net | NS | Name server | dns1.namecheaphosting.com |
| carrieresystems.net | NS | Name server | dns2.namecheaphosting.com |
| carrieresystems.net | MX | Mail server | 30 mx3-hosting.jellyfish.systems |
| carrieresystems.net | MX | Mail server | 20 mx2-hosting.jellyfish.systems |
| carrieresystems.net | MX | Mail server | 10 mx1-hosting.jellyfish.systems |
| carrieresystems.net | SOA | Start of Authority | dns1.namecheaphosting.com. cpanel.tech.namecheap.com. 1750425187 86400 7200 3600000 86400 |
| carrieresystems.net | TXT | Text record | "MAltYWlsLmNhcnJpZXJlc3lzdGVtcy5uZXQuCg==" |
| carrieresystems.net | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:199.188.200.106 +ip4:199.188.200.108 include:spf.web-hosting.com +ip4:199.188.200.110 +ip4:199.188.200.112 ~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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| cPanel | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.2.6 | CMS, Blogs |
| Gutenberg | WordPress plugins, Editors |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 7.4.33 | Programming languages |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| Elementor 3.23.4 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| LiteSpeed Cache | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| WooCommerce 8.2.2 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| jQuery Migrate | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Underscore.js 1.13.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| RSS | 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 4.0 | 89% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Basic | 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.