Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | The Manufacturing Outlook Magazine | Trends & Solutions for Modern Manufacturers |
| Description: | The Manufacturing Outlook Magazine explores industry advancements, operational strategies, and emerging technologies to help manufacturers optimize production and stay competitive. |
| IP address | 52.40.110.143 |
| Country | US  |
| AS number | AS16509 |
| Net name | Amazon Inc |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd 2.4.61 |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd 2.4.61 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Twitter Ads | Advertising |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon EC2 | Web servers |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Facebook Login | Authentication |
| Google Sign-in | Authentication |
| Google Publisher Tag | Advertising |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| core-js 2.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.61 | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.6.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| OpenSSL 1.0.2k | Web server extensions |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP 7.0.33 | Programming languages |
| Alexa Certified Site Metrics | Analytics |
| Widgets | |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Google AdSense | Advertising |
| DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) | Advertising |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Linkedin Sign-in | Authentication |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | CVE-2022-1292 | The c_rehash script does not properly sanitise shell metacharacters to prevent command injection. This script is distributed by some operating systems in a manner where it is automatically executed. On such operating systems, an attacker could execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the script. Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1o (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1n). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2ze (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2zd). | openssl 1.0.2k | |
| 10 | CVE-2022-2068 | In addition to the c_rehash shell command injection identified in CVE-2022-1292, further circumstances where the c_rehash script does not properly sanitise shell metacharacters to prevent command injection were found by code review. When the CVE-2022-1292 was fixed it was not discovered that there are other places in the script where the file names of certificates being hashed were possibly passed to a command executed through the shell. This script is distributed by some operating systems in a manner where it is automatically executed. On such operating systems, an attacker could execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the script. Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.4 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2,3.0.3). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1p (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1o). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2zf (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2ze). | openssl 1.0.2k | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-0215 | The public API function BIO_new_NDEF is a helper function used for streaming ASN.1 data via a BIO. It is primarily used internally to OpenSSL to support the SMIME, CMS and PKCS7 streaming capabilities, but may also be called directly by end user applications. The function receives a BIO from the caller, prepends a new BIO_f_asn1 filter BIO onto the front of it to form a BIO chain, and then returns the new head of the BIO chain to the caller. Under certain conditions, for example if a CMS recipient public key is invalid, the new filter BIO is freed and the function returns a NULL result indicating a failure. However, in this case, the BIO chain is not properly cleaned up and the BIO passed by the caller still retains internal pointers to the previously freed filter BIO. If the caller then goes on to call BIO_pop() on the BIO then a use-after-free will occur. This will most likely result in a crash. This scenario occurs directly in the internal function B64_write_ASN1() which may cause BIO_new_NDEF() to be called and will subsequently call BIO_pop() on the BIO. This internal function is in turn called by the public API functions PEM_write_bio_ASN1_stream, PEM_write_bio_CMS_stream, PEM_write_bio_PKCS7_stream, SMIME_write_ASN1, SMIME_write_CMS and SMIME_write_PKCS7. Other public API functions that may be impacted by this include i2d_ASN1_bio_stream, BIO_new_CMS, BIO_new_PKCS7, i2d_CMS_bio_stream and i2d_PKCS7_bio_stream. The OpenSSL cms and smime command line applications are similarly affected. | openssl 1.0.2k | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-0464 | A security vulnerability has been identified in all supported versions of OpenSSL related to the verification of X.509 certificate chains that include policy constraints. Attackers may be able to exploit this vulnerability by creating a malicious certificate chain that triggers exponential use of computational resources, leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on affected systems. Policy processing is disabled by default but can be enabled by passing the `-policy' argument to the command line utilities or by calling the `X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies()' function. | openssl 1.0.2k | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2024-40898 | SSRF in Apache HTTP Server on Windows with mod_rewrite in server/vhost context, allows to potentially leak NTML hashes to a malicious server via SSRF and malicious requests. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.62 which fixes this issue. | http_server 2.4.61 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-8923 | The zend_string_extend function in Zend/zend_string.h in PHP through 7.1.5 does not prevent changes to string objects that result in a negative length, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging a script's use of .= with a long string. | php 7.0.33 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-9225 | An issue was discovered in Oniguruma 6.2.0, as used in Oniguruma-mod in Ruby through 2.4.1 and mbstring in PHP through 7.1.5. A stack out-of-bounds write in onigenc_unicode_get_case_fold_codes_by_str() occurs during regular expression compilation. Code point 0xFFFFFFFF is not properly handled in unicode_unfold_key(). A malformed regular expression could result in 4 bytes being written off the end of a stack buffer of expand_case_fold_string() during the call to onigenc_unicode_get_case_fold_codes_by_str(), a typical stack buffer overflow. | php 7.0.33 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-9120 | PHP 7.x through 7.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string because of an Integer overflow in mysqli_real_escape_string. | php 7.0.33 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2019-9020 | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. Invalid input to the function xmlrpc_decode() can lead to an invalid memory access (heap out of bounds read or read after free). This is related to xml_elem_parse_buf in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xml_element.c. | php 7.0.33 | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2019-9021 | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. A heap-based buffer over-read in PHAR reading functions in the PHAR extension may allow an attacker to read allocated or unallocated memory past the actual data when trying to parse the file name, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-20783. This is related to phar_detect_phar_fname_ext in ext/phar/phar.c. | php 7.0.33 | |
| 7.4 | CVE-2023-0286 | There is a type confusion vulnerability relating to X.400 address processing inside an X.509 GeneralName. X.400 addresses were parsed as an ASN1_STRING but the public structure definition for GENERAL_NAME incorrectly specified the type of the x400Address field as ASN1_TYPE. This field is subsequently interpreted by the OpenSSL function GENERAL_NAME_cmp as an ASN1_TYPE rather than an ASN1_STRING. When CRL checking is enabled (i.e. the application sets the X509_V_FLAG_CRL_CHECK flag), this vulnerability may allow an attacker to pass arbitrary pointers to a memcmp call, enabling them to read memory contents or enact a denial of service. In most cases, the attack requires the attacker to provide both the certificate chain and CRL, neither of which need to have a valid signature. If the attacker only controls one of these inputs, the other input must already contain an X.400 address as a CRL distribution point, which is uncommon. As such, this vulnerability is most likely to only affect applications which have implemented their own functionality for retrieving CRLs over a network. | openssl 1.0.2k | |
| 5.3 | CVE-2024-40725 | A partial fix for CVE-2024-39884 in the core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.61 ignores some use of the legacy content-type based configuration of handlers. "AddType" and similar configuration, under some circumstances where files are requested indirectly, result in source code disclosure of local content. For example, PHP scripts may be served instead of interpreted. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.62, which fixes this issue. | http_server 2.4.61 |
Vulnerability description
We noticed known vulnerabilities in the target application based on the server responses. They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks. Depending on the system distribution the affected software can be patched but displays the same version, requiring manual checking.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system.
Recommendation
In order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities, we recommend you check the installed software version and upgrade to the latest version.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1026 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com/images/ | countrycode | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: countrycode=US |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-1004 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com/images/ | countrycode | Set-Cookie: countrycode=US |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com/images/ | countrycode | Set-Cookie: .themanufacturingoutlook.com |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application sets cookies with a domain scope that is too broad. Specifically, cookies intended for use within a particular application are configured in such a way that they can be accessed by multiple subdomains of the same primary domain.
Risk description
The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com, hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from the main site.
Recommendation
The `Domain` attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to `Domain=app.mysite.com`
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com/ | 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://www.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com/ | 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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com/ | 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Twitter Ads | Advertising |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon EC2 | Web servers |
| cdnjs | CDN |
| Facebook Login | Authentication |
| Google Sign-in | Authentication |
| Google Publisher Tag | Advertising |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| core-js 2.5.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.61 | Web servers |
| jQuery 3.6.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| OpenSSL 1.0.2k | Web server extensions |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| PHP 7.0.33 | Programming languages |
| Alexa Certified Site Metrics | Analytics |
| Widgets | |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Google AdSense | Advertising |
| DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) | Advertising |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Linkedin Sign-in | Authentication |
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 |
Vulnerability description
We found the robots.txt on the target server. This file instructs web crawlers what URLs and endpoints of the web application they can visit and crawl. Website administrators often misuse this file while attempting to hide some web pages from the users.
Risk description
There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.
Recommendation
We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website (ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
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
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVE-2024-40898 | SSRF in Apache HTTP Server on Windows with mod_rewrite in server/vhost context, allows to potentially leak NTML hashes to a malicious server via SSRF and malicious requests. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.62 which fixes this issue. | |
| 5.3 | CVE-2024-40725 | A partial fix for CVE-2024-39884 in the core of Apache HTTP Server 2.4.61 ignores some use of the legacy content-type based configuration of handlers. "AddType" and similar configuration, under some circumstances where files are requested indirectly, result in source code disclosure of local content. For example, PHP scripts may be served instead of interpreted. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 2.4.62, which fixes this issue. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Apache HTTP Server 2.4.61
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
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-8923 | The zend_string_extend function in Zend/zend_string.h in PHP through 7.1.5 does not prevent changes to string objects that result in a negative length, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact by leveraging a script's use of .= with a long string. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-9225 | An issue was discovered in Oniguruma 6.2.0, as used in Oniguruma-mod in Ruby through 2.4.1 and mbstring in PHP through 7.1.5. A stack out-of-bounds write in onigenc_unicode_get_case_fold_codes_by_str() occurs during regular expression compilation. Code point 0xFFFFFFFF is not properly handled in unicode_unfold_key(). A malformed regular expression could result in 4 bytes being written off the end of a stack buffer of expand_case_fold_string() during the call to onigenc_unicode_get_case_fold_codes_by_str(), a typical stack buffer overflow. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2017-9120 | PHP 7.x through 7.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and application crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact via a long string because of an Integer overflow in mysqli_real_escape_string. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2019-9020 | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. Invalid input to the function xmlrpc_decode() can lead to an invalid memory access (heap out of bounds read or read after free). This is related to xml_elem_parse_buf in ext/xmlrpc/libxmlrpc/xml_element.c. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2019-9021 | An issue was discovered in PHP before 5.6.40, 7.x before 7.1.26, 7.2.x before 7.2.14, and 7.3.x before 7.3.1. A heap-based buffer over-read in PHAR reading functions in the PHAR extension may allow an attacker to read allocated or unallocated memory past the actual data when trying to parse the file name, a different vulnerability than CVE-2018-20783. This is related to phar_detect_phar_fname_ext in ext/phar/phar.c. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 7.0.33
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
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | CVE-2022-1292 | The c_rehash script does not properly sanitise shell metacharacters to prevent command injection. This script is distributed by some operating systems in a manner where it is automatically executed. On such operating systems, an attacker could execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the script. Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1o (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1n). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2ze (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2zd). | |
| 10 | CVE-2022-2068 | In addition to the c_rehash shell command injection identified in CVE-2022-1292, further circumstances where the c_rehash script does not properly sanitise shell metacharacters to prevent command injection were found by code review. When the CVE-2022-1292 was fixed it was not discovered that there are other places in the script where the file names of certificates being hashed were possibly passed to a command executed through the shell. This script is distributed by some operating systems in a manner where it is automatically executed. On such operating systems, an attacker could execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the script. Use of the c_rehash script is considered obsolete and should be replaced by the OpenSSL rehash command line tool. Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.4 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2,3.0.3). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.1.1p (Affected 1.1.1-1.1.1o). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2zf (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2ze). | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-0215 | The public API function BIO_new_NDEF is a helper function used for streaming ASN.1 data via a BIO. It is primarily used internally to OpenSSL to support the SMIME, CMS and PKCS7 streaming capabilities, but may also be called directly by end user applications. The function receives a BIO from the caller, prepends a new BIO_f_asn1 filter BIO onto the front of it to form a BIO chain, and then returns the new head of the BIO chain to the caller. Under certain conditions, for example if a CMS recipient public key is invalid, the new filter BIO is freed and the function returns a NULL result indicating a failure. However, in this case, the BIO chain is not properly cleaned up and the BIO passed by the caller still retains internal pointers to the previously freed filter BIO. If the caller then goes on to call BIO_pop() on the BIO then a use-after-free will occur. This will most likely result in a crash. This scenario occurs directly in the internal function B64_write_ASN1() which may cause BIO_new_NDEF() to be called and will subsequently call BIO_pop() on the BIO. This internal function is in turn called by the public API functions PEM_write_bio_ASN1_stream, PEM_write_bio_CMS_stream, PEM_write_bio_PKCS7_stream, SMIME_write_ASN1, SMIME_write_CMS and SMIME_write_PKCS7. Other public API functions that may be impacted by this include i2d_ASN1_bio_stream, BIO_new_CMS, BIO_new_PKCS7, i2d_CMS_bio_stream and i2d_PKCS7_bio_stream. The OpenSSL cms and smime command line applications are similarly affected. | |
| 7.5 | CVE-2023-0464 | A security vulnerability has been identified in all supported versions of OpenSSL related to the verification of X.509 certificate chains that include policy constraints. Attackers may be able to exploit this vulnerability by creating a malicious certificate chain that triggers exponential use of computational resources, leading to a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on affected systems. Policy processing is disabled by default but can be enabled by passing the `-policy' argument to the command line utilities or by calling the `X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_policies()' function. | |
| 7.4 | CVE-2023-0286 | There is a type confusion vulnerability relating to X.400 address processing inside an X.509 GeneralName. X.400 addresses were parsed as an ASN1_STRING but the public structure definition for GENERAL_NAME incorrectly specified the type of the x400Address field as ASN1_TYPE. This field is subsequently interpreted by the OpenSSL function GENERAL_NAME_cmp as an ASN1_TYPE rather than an ASN1_STRING. When CRL checking is enabled (i.e. the application sets the X509_V_FLAG_CRL_CHECK flag), this vulnerability may allow an attacker to pass arbitrary pointers to a memcmp call, enabling them to read memory contents or enact a denial of service. In most cases, the attack requires the attacker to provide both the certificate chain and CRL, neither of which need to have a valid signature. If the attacker only controls one of these inputs, the other input must already contain an X.400 address as a CRL distribution point, which is uncommon. As such, this vulnerability is most likely to only affect applications which have implemented their own functionality for retrieving CRLs over a network. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for OpenSSL 1.0.2k
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net;" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
We managed to detect that OpenSSL has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 1.0.2k End-of-life date: 2019-12-31 Latest version for the cycle: 1.0.2u This release cycle (1.0.2) does have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2015-01-22 and its latest release date was 2019-12-20.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.40.110.143 |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | NS | Name server | ns51.domaincontrol.com |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | NS | Name server | ns52.domaincontrol.com |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns51.domaincontrol.com. dns.jomax.net. 2025052211 28800 7200 604800 600 |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=dYZ6MqEEx6N8iQnd6JAZ2LKLJxNyIdN-3JMS8498xxs" |
| themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all" |
| _dmarc.themanufacturingoutlookeurope.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; adkim=r; aspf=r; rua=mailto:dmarc_rua@onsecureserver.net;" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Linux 2.6.32 | 90% |
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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAqCBAdosZlnh2IRgKn58r6eBmL36HBHnChXHyWD1izEJDuDCf/qpU/JkQhHD+a3dwkAwRLdADkQa0McD+9xKWAVfEuj50ZtyFi3ChcN22Il2vrOg7iHP3zS2lfxiwdVjjNpW5HTuujU3ovcBrLIwWx6zrmAXWJXOA8qzhbcG9iEBmVkf0US4d4P88DewWL3RGZ" "K7fcut/azqYdqkPgirpnqLaxefgblLhuagG5d+jzyPu/GqKtGQKxw7eeW622Sk4eJ288/AHW0ViqcKoRYeBNkrsU4+CWJHGQ9176sAJ0k1RkCmArbBbmI2RiegVoE3tUUFxzf/l/xD5kZlP+hSMaQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| PHP 7.0.33 | Programming languages |
| Linkedin Sign-in | Authentication |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| OpenSSL 1.0.2k | Web server extensions |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server 2.4.61 | Web servers |
| Amazon EC2 | Web servers |
| Widgets | |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| Modernizr | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.6.4 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Publisher Tag | Advertising |
| Google Hosted Libraries | CDN |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| Google AdSense | Advertising |
| DoubleClick for Publishers (DFP) | Advertising |
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.