Vulnerability Scan Result

| Title: | Energa Trefl Sopot – młodzież |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 213.32.10.111 |
| country | FR |
| network_name | Ovh Sas |
| asn | AS16276 |
7/tcp | echo | - - |
9/tcp | discard | - - |
13/tcp | daytime | - - |
20/tcp | ftp-data | - - |
21/tcp | ftp | - - |
22/tcp | ssh | - - |
23/tcp | telnet | - - |
25/tcp | smtp | - - |
26/tcp | rsftp | - - |
37/tcp | time | - - |
42/tcp | nameserver | - - |
43/tcp | whois | - - |
53/tcp | domain | - - |
70/tcp | gopher | - - |
79/tcp | finger | - - |
80/tcp | http | OVHcloud - |
81/tcp | hosts2-ns | - - |
88/tcp | kerberos-sec | - - |
102/tcp | iso-tsap | - - |
106/tcp | pop3pw | - - |
110/tcp | pop3 | - - |
111/tcp | rpcbind | - - |
113/tcp | ident | - - |
119/tcp | nntp | - - |
135/tcp | msrpc | - - |
137/tcp | netbios-ns | - - |
138/tcp | netbios-dgm | - - |
139/tcp | netbios-ssn | - - |
143/tcp | imap | - - |
144/tcp | news | - - |
179/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
199/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
201/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
264/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
318/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
383/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
389/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
411/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
412/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
427/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
443/tcp | https | OVHcloud - |
444/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
445/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
464/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
465/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
497/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
512/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
513/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
514/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
515/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
540/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
543/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
544/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
546/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
547/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
548/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
554/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
563/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
587/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
591/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
593/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
596/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
631/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
639/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
646/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
691/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
860/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
873/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
902/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
989/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
990/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
993/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
995/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1025/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1026/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1027/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1028/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1029/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1080/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1110/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1194/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1214/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1241/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1311/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1337/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1433/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1589/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1701/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1720/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1723/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1741/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1755/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1900/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2001/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2002/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2049/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2078/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2080/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2082/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2083/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2086/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2087/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2100/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2121/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2483/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2484/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2717/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2967/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3050/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3128/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3306/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3389/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3690/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3784/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3986/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4280/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4333/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4444/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4445/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4899/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5004/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5005/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5009/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5013/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5051/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5060/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5101/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5190/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5223/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5357/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5432/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5631/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5666/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5800/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5900/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5901/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5985/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5986/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6001/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6129/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6346/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6347/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6379/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6588/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6646/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6665/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6679/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6699/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7001/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7070/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7199/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8008/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8009/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8080/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8081/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8200/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8443/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8500/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8888/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9042/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9100/tcp | jetdirect | - - |
9800/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9999/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10161/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10162/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
19638/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
20000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
27017/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
32768/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49152/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49153/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49154/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49155/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49156/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49157/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| DataTables | JavaScript libraries |
| Magnific Popup 3.4.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Elementor 3.15.3 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Elementor Header & Footer Builder | WordPress plugins |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| imagesLoaded 4.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| OceanWP 3.4.7 | WordPress themes |
| PHP 8.4 | Programming languages |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| Underscore.js 1.13.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| WordPress 6.3.7 | CMS, Blogs |
| WPForms 1.8.3.1 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-7063 | 7.2 | 0.01381 | 0.79922 | The WPForms Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via form submission parameters in all versions up to, and including, 1.8.5.3 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. |
| CVE-2024-13403 | 6.4 | 0.00185 | 0.40266 | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘fieldHTML’ parameter in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. |
| CVE-2024-11223 | 4.7 | 0.00077 | 0.22945 | The WPForms WordPress plugin before 1.9.2.3 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup). |
| CVE-2024-56276 | 4.3 | 0.00331 | 0.55522 | Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPForms Contact Form by WPForms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Contact Form by WPForms: from n/a through 1.9.2.2. |
| CVE-2024-10593 | 4.3 | 0.00164 | 0.37659 | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_admin_ui function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete WPForm logs via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
Vulnerability description
Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.
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-1035 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-8944 | 4.3 | 0.00048 | 0.14826 | The OceanWP WordPress theme before 4.1.2 is vulnerable to an option update due to a missing capability check on one of its AJAX request handler, allowing any authenticated users, such as subscriber to update the darkMod` setting. |
Vulnerability description
Outdated or vulnerable software components include versions of server-side software that are no longer supported or have known, publicly disclosed vulnerabilities. Using outdated software significantly increases the attack surface of a system and may allow unauthorized access, data leaks, or service disruptions. Vulnerabilities in these components are often well-documented and actively exploited by attackers. Without security patches or vendor support, any weaknesses remain unmitigated, exposing the application to risks. In some cases, even after patching, the reported version may remain unchanged, requiring manual verification.
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-1035 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl/wp-content/plugins/wpforms-lite/assets | 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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl/wp-content/themes/oceanwp/ | 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 | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl/ | 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://www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl/ | 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
Vulnerability description
We found the robots.txt on the target server. This file instructs web crawlers what URLs and endpoints of the web application they can visit and crawl. Website administrators often misuse this file while attempting to hide some web pages from the users.
Risk description
There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.
Recommendation
We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website (ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl/ | 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 |
|---|---|
| DataTables | JavaScript libraries |
| Magnific Popup 3.4.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Elementor 3.15.3 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Elementor Header & Footer Builder | WordPress plugins |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| imagesLoaded 4.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| OceanWP 3.4.7 | WordPress themes |
| PHP 8.4 | Programming languages |
| Swiper | JavaScript libraries |
| Underscore.js 1.13.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| WordPress 6.3.7 | CMS, Blogs |
| WPForms 1.8.3.1 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| 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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl/ | GET | Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 | Email Address: j.kociolek@sport.trefl.com |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-7063 | 7.2 | 0.01381 | 0.79922 | No | The WPForms Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via form submission parameters in all versions up to, and including, 1.8.5.3 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. |
| CVE-2024-13403 | 6.4 | 0.00185 | 0.40266 | No | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘fieldHTML’ parameter in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. |
| CVE-2024-11223 | 4.7 | 0.00077 | 0.22945 | No | The WPForms WordPress plugin before 1.9.2.3 does not sanitise and escape some of its settings, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup). |
| CVE-2024-56276 | 4.3 | 0.00331 | 0.55522 | No | Missing Authorization vulnerability in WPForms Contact Form by WPForms allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Contact Form by WPForms: from n/a through 1.9.2.2. |
| CVE-2024-10593 | 4.3 | 0.00164 | 0.37659 | No | The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_admin_ui function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete WPForm logs via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WPForms 1.8.3.1
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl | A | IPv4 address | 213.32.10.111 |
| www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2001:41d0:301:5::28 |
| www.treflsopotmlodziez.pl | TXT | Text record | "3|welcome" |
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 |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.3.7 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 8.4 | Programming languages |
| WPForms 1.8.3.1 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| OceanWP 3.4.7 | WordPress themes |
| Elementor Header & Footer Builder | WordPress plugins |
| Elementor 3.15.3 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| Underscore.js 1.13.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Magnific Popup 3.4.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Lightbox | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 4.1.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| DataTables | JavaScript libraries |
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 |
|---|---|
| Windows | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
