Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Moston Janitorial Supplies LTD |
| Description: | Moston Janitorial Supplies LTD |
| ip_address | 93.114.185.157 |
| country | GB  |
| network_name | Coreix Ltd |
| asn | AS31708 |
21/tcp | ftp | ProFTPD - |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | nginx - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| LazySizes | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| Glide.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Leaflet 1.9.4 | Maps |
| Livefyre 1.9.4 | Comment systems |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk/ | moston_janitorial_supplies_ltd_session | Set-Cookie: moston_janitorial_supplies_ltd_session=eyJpdiI6IkhVRzJNVXlzMlhGSmwzZlJYUmNmRWc9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoidDRkQ0prMGtlUVVDVm5TT2dkRDBlMzdkVnh3ZHdSVTd5YmxCOGJ3UEhJeUdKMm4wMXBXSm1QWTJuR21STFlIVWdZaUtCRHVXejdQZmV6RC9yOTIwbkx5Ty9ndlNPOWNyRXhQR1JtTkF3T2hoeVJrZURjYzhpRWhlR2NHYytmSU8iLCJtYWMiOiJiNmI0ZDVlYWQzYmFkYWNhOGQyMDAzNDU0ZDQ2NmExNDZhNjNlZDdmN2JkNjcyNDMyNGYzNzZlNDJjMWViYWU5IiwidGFnIjoiIn0%3D |
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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk/ | 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://www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk/ | 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 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| LazySizes | JavaScript libraries, Performance |
| Glide.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| Leaflet 1.9.4 | Maps |
| Livefyre 1.9.4 | Comment systems |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Webpack | Miscellaneous |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Cart Functionality | Ecommerce |
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
We found the robots.txt on the target server. This file instructs web crawlers what URLs and endpoints of the web application they can visit and crawl. Website administrators often misuse this file while attempting to hide some web pages from the users.
Risk description
There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.
Recommendation
We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website (ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk/ | 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 | Email Address: sales@mostonjanitorial.co.uk |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| 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 | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: GET,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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service.
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
21/tcp open ftp ProFTPDVulnerability 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | A | IPv4 address | 93.114.185.157 |
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | NS | Name server | ns1.mostonjanitorial.co.uk |
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | NS | Name server | ns2.mostonjanitorial.co.uk |
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.mostonjanitorial.co.uk |
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | SOA | Start of Authority | ns2.mostonjanitorial.co.uk. sales.mostonjanitorial.co.uk. 2022032401 10800 3600 604800 10800 |
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a00:d680:20:50::d341 |
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com +a +mx +a:hosting.planitbs.co.uk include:mailgun.org -all" |
| www.mostonjanitorial.co.uk | CNAME | Canonical name | mostonjanitorial.co.uk |
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 4.15 - 5.6 | 100% |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
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.