Vulnerability Scan Result

IP address | 172.67.189.65 |
Country | - |
AS number | AS13335 |
Net name | Cloudflare Inc |
IP address | 104.21.9.122 |
Country | - |
AS number | AS13335 |
Net name | Cloudflare Inc |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
443/tcp | https | cloudflare - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8443/tcp | http | cloudflare - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Contact Form 7 6.0.6 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
GSAP | JavaScript frameworks |
HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
imagesLoaded 28.0.6 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery UI 1.13.3 | JavaScript libraries |
Slick | JavaScript libraries |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
WooCommerce 28.0.6 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
WordPress 6.8.1 | CMS, Blogs |
BeTheme 28.0.6 | WordPress themes |
Cloudflare | CDN |
Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
RSS | Miscellaneous |
Slider Revolution 6.6.19 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://haylingcamperconversions.co.uk/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://haylingcamperconversions.co.uk/ | 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
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://haylingcamperconversions.co.uk/wp-content/themes/betheme | 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: wordpress_test_cookie=WP%20Cookie%20check | Response has an internal server error status code: 500 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's website does not properly handle or incorrectly manages exceptional conditions like Internal Server Errors. These errors can reveal sensitive information through their error messages. For instance, an error message could inadvertently disclose system paths or private application details.
Risk description
The risk exists that attackers could utilize information revealed in Internal Server Error messages to mount more targeted and effective attacks. Detailed error messages could, for example, expose a path traversal weakness (CWE-22) or other exploitable system vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience, and nobody else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic and not being cryptic enough. They should not necessarily reveal the methods that were used to determine the error. Such detailed information can be used to refine the original attack to increase the chances of success. If errors must be tracked in some detail, capture them in log messages - but consider what could occur if the log messages can be viewed by attackers. Avoid recording highly sensitive information such as passwords in any form. Avoid inconsistent messaging that might accidentally tip off an attacker about internal state, such as whether a username is valid or not.
Classification
CWE | CWE-209 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Contact Form 7 6.0.6 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
GSAP | JavaScript frameworks |
HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
imagesLoaded 28.0.6 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery UI 1.13.3 | JavaScript libraries |
Slick | JavaScript libraries |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
WooCommerce 28.0.6 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
WordPress 6.8.1 | CMS, Blogs |
BeTheme 28.0.6 | WordPress themes |
Cloudflare | CDN |
Lodash 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
RSS | Miscellaneous |
Slider Revolution 6.6.19 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Classification
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://haylingcamperconversions.co.uk/wp-login.php |
|
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.
Recommendation
Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.
Evidence
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://haylingcamperconversions.co.uk/ | GET | Query: feed=rss2 page_id=200 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: wordpress_test_cookie=WP%20Cookie%20check | 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.
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
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "MS=ms99620463" |
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
We checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
Evidence
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | A | IPv4 address | 172.67.189.65 |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | A | IPv4 address | 104.21.9.122 |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | NS | Name server | lee.ns.cloudflare.com |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | NS | Name server | sara.ns.cloudflare.com |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | MX | Mail server | 0 haylingcamperconversions-co-uk.mail.protection.outlook.com |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | SOA | Start of Authority | lee.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2373481368 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:3035::ac43:bd41 |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:3033::6815:97a |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | TXT | Text record | "MS=ms99620463" |
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
Risk description
An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.
Recommendation
We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.
Evidence
Operating System | Accuracy |
---|---|
FreeBSD 11.0-STABLE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
haylingcamperconversions.co.uk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all" |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
WordPress 6.8.1 | CMS, Blogs |
Slider Revolution 6.7.4 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
MySQL | Databases |
PHP | Programming languages |
Contact Form 7 6.0.6 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
BeTheme 28.0.6 | WordPress themes |
WooCommerce 28.0.6 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
Slick | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
imagesLoaded 28.0.6 | JavaScript libraries |
Cloudflare | CDN |
HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Cloudflare | 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.