Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | https://support.x.com/ |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 172.66.0.227 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare, Inc. |
| asn | AS13335 |
80/tcp | http | Varnish - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Fourthwall 1 | Ecommerce |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Java | Programming languages |
| MariaDB | Databases |
| Apache Tomcat | Web servers |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Skolengo 1 | CMS, LMS |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Fourthwall 1 | Ecommerce |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| Java | Programming languages |
| MariaDB | Databases |
| Apache Tomcat | Web servers |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Skolengo 1 | CMS, LMS |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
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
We have noticed that the server is missing the security.txt file, which is considered a good practice for web security. It provides a standardized way for security researchers and the public to report security vulnerabilities or concerns by outlining the preferred method of contact and reporting procedures.
Risk description
There is no particular risk in not having a security.txt file for your server. However, this file is important because it offers a designated channel for reporting vulnerabilities and security issues.
Recommendation
We recommend you to implement the security.txt file according to the standard, in order to allow researchers or users report any security issues they find, improving the defensive mechanisms of your server.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1188 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: a.r06.twtrdns.net, a.u06.twtrdns.net, b.r06.twtrdns.net, b.u06.twtrdns.net, c.r06.twtrdns.net, c.u06.twtrdns.net, d.r06.twtrdns.net, d.u06.twtrdns.net
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
We found insecure EDNS configuration on the following nameservers: b.r06.twtrdns.net, b.u06.twtrdns.net b.r06.twtrdns.net:
b.u06.twtrdns.net:
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not properly implement EDNS (Extension Mechanisms for DNS). EDNS allows larger DNS packets and supports modern features such as DNSSEC.
Risk description
The risk exists because improper or missing EDNS support can lead to truncated responses, degraded DNS performance, and compatibility issues with DNSSEC. This exposes users to risks such as incomplete DNS resolution and failed DNSSEC validation.
Recommendation
We recommend ensuring the proper implementation of EDNS on the DNS server. Update the DNS server software to support EDNS fully, including modern features like DNSSEC. Regularly test DNS configurations to ensure compliance and performance.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.t.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; rua=mailto:d@rua.agari.com; ruf=mailto:d@ruf.agari.com; fo=1" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
| 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Skolengo 1 | CMS, LMS |
| Fourthwall 1 | Ecommerce |
| MariaDB | Databases |
| Java | Programming languages |
| Apache Tomcat | Web servers |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| 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.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| OpenBSD 4.3 | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| t.co | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| t.co | A | IPv4 address | 172.66.0.227 |
| t.co | NS | Name server | a.r06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | NS | Name server | a.u06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | NS | Name server | b.r06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | NS | Name server | b.u06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | NS | Name server | c.r06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | NS | Name server | c.u06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | NS | Name server | d.r06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | NS | Name server | d.u06.twtrdns.net |
| t.co | SOA | Start of Authority | a.u06.twtrdns.net. noc.twitter.com. 2023121101 3600 600 604800 3600 |
| t.co | TXT | Text record | "1nfb08f5jkpy0flhn6lwml2vk7x34hrd" |
| t.co | TXT | Text record | "1z8q6j6wymwb6bh0t3q28tp7vsbgnh6d" |
| t.co | TXT | Text record | "48qgbs8f2v055y997kpf4cx2302fzfs2" |
| t.co | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 -all" |
| _dmarc.t.co | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=s; aspf=s; rua=mailto:d@rua.agari.com; ruf=mailto:d@ruf.agari.com; fo=1" |
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.