Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | HOKI138 : Slot Demo Terbaru Meledak X50000 Bernuansa Provider Resmi Pasti Gacor |
| Description: | Rasakan serunya main di zona slot gacor HOKi138 setiap hari jackpot bisa meledak kapan saja putaran mudah maxwin bukan mimpi modal santai untung besar cuan terus mengalir tanpa batas. |
| ip_address | 91.148.168.195 |
| country | BG  |
| network_name | Telehouse EAD |
| asn | AS57344 |
21/tcp | ftp | Pure-FTPd - |
25/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
26/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
53/tcp | domain | - - |
80/tcp | http | Apache httpd - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot pop3d - |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.98.2 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Babel | Miscellaneous |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| core-js 2.5.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| React 16.8.0 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Alibaba Cloud CDN | CDN |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://hoki138edu.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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://hoki138edu.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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://hoki138edu.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 | |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Babel | Miscellaneous |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| core-js 2.5.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| React 16.8.0 | JavaScript frameworks |
| Alibaba Cloud CDN | CDN |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| HSTS | Security |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://hoki138edu.com/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,POST,OPTIONS,HEAD` Request / Response |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the webserver responded with an Allow HTTP header when an OPTIONS HTTP request was sent. This method responds to requests by providing information about the methods available for the target resource.
Risk description
The only risk this might present nowadays is revealing debug HTTP methods that can be used on the server. This can present a danger if any of those methods can lead to sensitive information, like authentication information, secret keys.
Recommendation
We recommend that you check for unused HTTP methods or even better, disable the OPTIONS method. This can be done using your webserver configuration.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-16 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the server is missing the security.txt file, which is considered a good practice for web security. It provides a standardized way for security researchers and the public to report security vulnerabilities or concerns by outlining the preferred method of contact and reporting procedures.
Risk description
There is no particular risk in not having a security.txt file for your server. However, this file is important because it offers a designated channel for reporting vulnerabilities and security issues.
Recommendation
We recommend you to implement the security.txt file according to the standard, in order to allow researchers or users report any security issues they find, improving the defensive mechanisms of your server.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://hoki138edu.com/ | 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 | Operating system paths found in the HTTP response: |
Vulnerability description
We found operating system paths returned in a HTTP response.
Risk description
The risk is that path disclosure may help an attacker learn more about the remote server's file system, thus increasing the effectiveness and precision of any future attacks.
Recommendation
Configure the web server to avoid leaking path information by using generic error messages that do not reveal any internal file paths. Make sure no server file is referred with its absolute path in the website code.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to extract the zone file from the ns1.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net name server.
Below are the first 5 lines of the zone file:
hoki138edu.com. 86400 IN SOA ns1.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net. admin.hoki138edu.com. 2022082501 86400 7200 2400000 86400 hoki138edu.com. 14400 IN TXT "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:91.148.168.195 -all" hoki138edu.com. 86400 IN NS ns1.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net. hoki138edu.com. 86400 IN NS ns2.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net. hoki138edu.com. 14400 IN A 91.148.168.195
You can also see the entire zone file here.
Vulnerability description
The remote name server permits the execution of DNS zone transfers, a process that enables a malicious attacker to rapidly compile a list of potential targets. Furthermore, organizations frequently employ naming conventions that may inadvertently reveal a server's primary purpose, such as dev.example.com, staging.example.com, prod.example.com, and so forth.
Risk description
This data can be used by an attacker to gain insights about the network's structure and to find new potential targets.
Recommendation
Reconfigure the DNS server to only allow zone transfers from trusted IP addresses.
Evidence
We managed to extract the zone file from the ns2.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net name server.
Below are the first 5 lines of the zone file:
hoki138edu.com. 86400 IN SOA ns1.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net. admin.hoki138edu.com. 2022082501 86400 7200 2400000 86400 hoki138edu.com. 14400 IN TXT "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:91.148.168.195 -all" hoki138edu.com. 86400 IN NS ns1.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net. hoki138edu.com. 86400 IN NS ns2.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net. hoki138edu.com. 14400 IN A 91.148.168.195
You can also see the entire zone file here.
Vulnerability description
The remote name server permits the execution of DNS zone transfers, a process that enables a malicious attacker to rapidly compile a list of potential targets. Furthermore, organizations frequently employ naming conventions that may inadvertently reveal a server's primary purpose, such as dev.example.com, staging.example.com, prod.example.com, and so forth.
Risk description
This data can be used by an attacker to gain insights about the network's structure and to find new potential targets.
Recommendation
Reconfigure the DNS server to only allow zone transfers from trusted IP addresses.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 840 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAq4rPHiB/HpClMa74QlwdKsbL2pTQT9B2NPTiX63BQpscdb9UDq49QjBB1HNWdotMryOH+YJxBwiVOMvBDP7wKKqbiozny+IY" "VkuCa1la6IKrAP3acCwOpHQ7+Zyevcy5XKYfv7kPIG7faxe72SBv1RMW3DqMLofFpdMGpAaPi2sU2dZIX9t8XkHh/20r7zATq6eHdugyip5aJOwSfeDHgPI/I9iCA1RTHZREYH4kQxOy7iNN3PYwmh5dy2kMpp5UgBgetdLc6nXCflxXv9BrCfAJMtNvA0nPsF+hjFln" "6jLMRD7AwWyespiQoq/cXI+SXUxtBKYXQf9oS5HymNnNYwIDAQAB;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM record uses common selectors. The use of common DKIM selectors such as default, test, dkim, or mail may indicate a lack of proper customization or key management. Attackers often target domains using such selectors because they suggest that the domain is relying on default configurations, which could be less secure and easier to exploit. This can increase the risk of DKIM key exposure or misuse.
Risk description
Using a common DKIM selector makes it easier for attackers to predict and exploit email authentication weaknesses. Attackers may attempt to find corresponding DKIM keys or improperly managed records associated with common selectors. If a common selector is coupled with a weak key length or poor key management practices, it significantly increases the likelihood of email spoofing and phishing attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend using unique, customized selectors for each DKIM key to make it more difficult for attackers to predict and target the domain's DKIM records. Regularly rotate selectors and associated keys to further strengthen the security of your domain's email authentication infrastructure.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.hoki138edu.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp Pure-FTPd
Vulnerability description
We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 840 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAq4rPHiB/HpClMa74QlwdKsbL2pTQT9B2NPTiX63BQpscdb9UDq49QjBB1HNWdotMryOH+YJxBwiVOMvBDP7wKKqbiozny+IY" "VkuCa1la6IKrAP3acCwOpHQ7+Zyevcy5XKYfv7kPIG7faxe72SBv1RMW3DqMLofFpdMGpAaPi2sU2dZIX9t8XkHh/20r7zATq6eHdugyip5aJOwSfeDHgPI/I9iCA1RTHZREYH4kQxOy7iNN3PYwmh5dy2kMpp5UgBgetdLc6nXCflxXv9BrCfAJMtNvA0nPsF+hjFln" "6jLMRD7AwWyespiQoq/cXI+SXUxtBKYXQf9oS5HymNnNYwIDAQAB;" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM key length is under 1024-bit. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) key length is under 1024-bit, it is considered weak by modern cryptographic standards. Shorter key lengths, such as 512 or 768 bits, are vulnerable to brute-force attacks, where an attacker could potentially forge a valid DKIM signature for a domain. This undermines the entire purpose of DKIM, which is to authenticate email messages and prevent email spoofing by verifying that the message headers have not been tampered with. A DKIM key under 1024 bits significantly reduces the difficulty for attackers to break the signature.
Risk description
The primary risk of using a DKIM key with fewer than 1024 bits is that it weakens the domain's email authentication security, making it more susceptible to brute-force attacks. If an attacker successfully forges a DKIM signature, they can impersonate legitimate senders and send fraudulent or phishing emails that appear authentic to the recipient. This can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and an increased risk of targeted attacks, as recipients are more likely to trust emails that pass DKIM verification.
Recommendation
We recommend using a DKIM key with a length of at least 1024 bits. Ideally, 2048-bit keys should be used, as they provide a higher level of security and are more resistant to brute-force attacks. Organizations should regularly audit their DKIM configurations and rotate cryptographic keys periodically to maintain security. In addition, any DKIM keys that are less than 1024 bits should be immediately replaced with stronger keys to prevent exploitation.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.hoki138edu.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400" |
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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.hoki138edu.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is configured with sp=none, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. This allows subdomains to send emails without being subject to DMARC checks, making it easier for attackers to spoof emails from these subdomains. Subdomains are often overlooked in email security, and attackers can exploit this misconfiguration to launch phishing or spoofing attacks from seemingly legitimate subdomains of a protected domain.
Risk description
When the DMARC record is configured with sp=none, subdomains are not subject to DMARC enforcement, allowing attackers to spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked. This creates a significant risk of phishing and impersonation attacks, where malicious emails appear to originate from trusted subdomains. These spoofed emails can be used to deceive users or damage the organization's reputation, undermining the security benefits of DMARC for the primary domain.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend that the subdomain policy should be updated to sp=reject to ensure that any email failing DMARC checks from subdomains is automatically rejected. This will help prevent unauthorized emails from being sent from subdomains, reducing the risk of spoofing and phishing. Additionally, it's important to regularly monitor DMARC reports to track email activity from subdomains and adjust policies as needed to maintain consistent security across the entire domain.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| default | rsa | 840 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAq4rPHiB/HpClMa74QlwdKsbL2pTQT9B2NPTiX63BQpscdb9UDq49QjBB1HNWdotMryOH+YJxBwiVOMvBDP7wKKqbiozny+IY" "VkuCa1la6IKrAP3acCwOpHQ7+Zyevcy5XKYfv7kPIG7faxe72SBv1RMW3DqMLofFpdMGpAaPi2sU2dZIX9t8XkHh/20r7zATq6eHdugyip5aJOwSfeDHgPI/I9iCA1RTHZREYH4kQxOy7iNN3PYwmh5dy2kMpp5UgBgetdLc6nXCflxXv9BrCfAJMtNvA0nPsF+hjFln" "6jLMRD7AwWyespiQoq/cXI+SXUxtBKYXQf9oS5HymNnNYwIDAQAB;" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| hoki138edu.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:91.148.168.195 -all" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| hoki138edu.com | A | IPv4 address | 91.148.168.195 |
| hoki138edu.com | NS | Name server | ns1.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net |
| hoki138edu.com | NS | Name server | ns2.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net |
| hoki138edu.com | MX | Mail server | 0 mail.hoki138edu.com |
| hoki138edu.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.cloud-cf5e30.managed-vps.net. admin.hoki138edu.com. 2022082501 86400 7200 2400000 86400 |
| hoki138edu.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 +a +mx +ip4:91.148.168.195 -all" |
| _dmarc.hoki138edu.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=none; rf=afrf; pct=100; ri=86400" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| HSTS | Security |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 2.6.32 | 94% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| React | JavaScript frameworks |
| AMP | JavaScript frameworks |
| Apache HTTP Server | Web servers |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Alibaba Cloud CDN | CDN |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| HSTS | Security |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.