Vulnerability Scan Result

IP address | 52.214.224.110 |
Country | IE ![]() |
AS number | AS16509 |
Net name | Amazon Inc |
IP address | 34.251.91.168 |
Country | IE ![]() |
AS number | AS16509 |
Net name | Amazon Inc |
IP address | 52.213.55.157 |
Country | IE ![]() |
AS number | AS16509 |
Net name | Amazon Inc |
80/tcp | http | PORTFOLIOBOX (www.portfoliobox.net) - |
443/tcp | https | PORTFOLIOBOX (www.portfoliobox.net) - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Axios | JavaScript libraries |
Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
jQuery 3.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Ko-fi | Widgets, Fundraising & donations |
Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
Stripe 3 | Payment processors |
Vue.js 2.6.10 | JavaScript frameworks |
reCAPTCHA | Security |
Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
HSTS | Security |
RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Risk Level | CVSS | CVE | Summary | Affected software |
---|---|---|---|---|
4.3 | CVE-2019-11358 | jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products, mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it could extend the native Object.prototype. | jquery 3.3.1 | |
4.3 | CVE-2020-11023 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 3.3.1 | |
4.3 | CVE-2020-11022 | In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0. | jquery 3.3.1 |
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 They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks.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 |
---|---|
http://www.popculturepunk.com/ | Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues: |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header configured for the web application includes unsafe directives. The CSP header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS) by restricting the sources from which content can be loaded or executed.
Risk description
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.
Recommendation
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.
Classification
CWE | CWE-693 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Axios | JavaScript libraries |
Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
jQuery 3.3.1 | JavaScript libraries |
Ko-fi | Widgets, Fundraising & donations |
Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
Stripe 3 | Payment processors |
Vue.js 2.6.10 | JavaScript frameworks |
reCAPTCHA | Security |
Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
HSTS | Security |
RSS | Miscellaneous |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
---|---|---|---|
www.popculturepunk.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.214.224.110 |
www.popculturepunk.com | A | IPv4 address | 52.213.55.157 |
www.popculturepunk.com | A | IPv4 address | 34.251.91.168 |
www.popculturepunk.com | CNAME | Canonical name | home.portfolioboxdns.com |
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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Stripe | Payment processors |
reCAPTCHA | Security |
Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
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
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Stripe | Payment processors |
reCAPTCHA | Security |
Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
Google Analytics UA | Analytics |
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.