Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Kontrolliertes Trinken - Alkohol (Selbst) Bestimmt |
| Description: | Kontrolliertes Trinken: Programme für Betroffene zur Reduktion eines überhöhten Alkoholkonsums; Zusatzausbildungen für Fachkräfte; Informationen über Alkohol |
| IP address | 81.20.84.155 |
| Country | DE  |
| AS number | AS25260 |
| Net name | Ripe NCC ASN Block |
80/tcp | http | Microsoft HTTPAPI httpd 2 |
135/tcp | msrpc | Microsoft Windows RPC - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
3389/tcp | ms-wbt-server | - - |
49155/tcp | msrpc | Microsoft Windows RPC - |
49156/tcp | msrpc | Microsoft Windows RPC - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Matomo Analytics | Analytics |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Microsoft ASP.NET 4.0.30319 | Web frameworks |
| IIS 8.5 | Web servers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | CVE-2014-4078 | The IP Security feature in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 8.0 and 8.5 does not properly process wildcard allow and deny rules for domains within the "IP Address and Domain Restrictions" list, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass an intended rule set via an HTTP request, aka "IIS Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability." | internet_information_services 8.5 |
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 They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks.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| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A6 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components |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 | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://kontrolliertes-trinken.ch/ | 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://kontrolliertes-trinken.ch/ | 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://kontrolliertes-trinken.ch/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://kontrolliertes-trinken.ch/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Matomo Analytics | Analytics |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Microsoft ASP.NET 4.0.30319 | Web frameworks |
| IIS 8.5 | Web servers |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
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 |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://kontrolliertes-trinken.ch/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: OPTIONS, TRACE, GET, HEAD, POST` 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 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Risk level | CVSS | CVE | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | CVE-2014-4078 | The IP Security feature in Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) 8.0 and 8.5 does not properly process wildcard allow and deny rules for domains within the "IP Address and Domain Restrictions" list, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass an intended rule set via an HTTP request, aka "IIS Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability." |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for IIS 8.5
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.;
Recommendation
We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service.
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
135/tcp open msrpc Microsoft Windows RPCVulnerability description
We found that the Windows Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service is publicly accessible. RPC is a protocol that one program can use to request a service from a program located on another computer in a network.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to launch attacks, including unauthorized access, remote code execution, information disclosure, denial of service (DoS), and potential lateral movement within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off RPC access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the RPC service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service.
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
49155/tcp open msrpc Microsoft Windows RPCVulnerability description
We found that the Windows Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service is publicly accessible. RPC is a protocol that one program can use to request a service from a program located on another computer in a network.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to launch attacks, including unauthorized access, remote code execution, information disclosure, denial of service (DoS), and potential lateral movement within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off RPC access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the RPC service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service.
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
49156/tcp open msrpc Microsoft Windows RPCVulnerability description
We found that the Windows Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service is publicly accessible. RPC is a protocol that one program can use to request a service from a program located on another computer in a network.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to launch attacks, including unauthorized access, remote code execution, information disclosure, denial of service (DoS), and potential lateral movement within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off RPC access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the RPC service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| kontrolliertes-trinken.ch | A | IPv4 address | 81.20.84.155 |
| kontrolliertes-trinken.ch | NS | Name server | ns2.domainkunden.de |
| kontrolliertes-trinken.ch | NS | Name server | ns1.domainkunden.de |
| kontrolliertes-trinken.ch | MX | Mail server | 10 qhmx2.colt1.inetserver.de |
| kontrolliertes-trinken.ch | MX | Mail server | 10 qhmx1.colt1.inetserver.de |
| kontrolliertes-trinken.ch | SOA | Start of Authority | master.domainkunden.de. hostmaster.domainkunden.de. 2014062401 28800 7200 604800 300 |
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
Vulnerability description
OS detection couldn't determine the operating system.
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| Microsoft ASP.NET 4.0.30319 | Web frameworks |
| IIS 8.5 | Web servers |
| Matomo Analytics | Analytics |
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.