Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Just a moment... |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 172.65.90.24 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare Inc |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 172.65.90.26 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare Inc |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 172.65.90.27 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare Inc |
| asn | AS13335 |
| ip_address | 172.65.90.25 |
| country | - |
| network_name | Cloudflare Inc |
| asn | AS13335 |
7/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
13/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
20/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
21/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
22/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
23/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
25/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
26/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
37/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
42/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
43/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
53/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
70/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
79/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
80/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
81/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
88/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
102/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
106/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
110/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
111/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
113/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
119/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
135/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
137/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
138/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
139/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
143/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
144/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
179/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
199/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
201/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
264/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
318/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
383/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
389/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
411/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
412/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
427/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
443/tcp | https | cloudflare - |
444/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
445/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
464/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
465/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
497/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
512/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
513/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
514/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
515/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
540/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
543/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
544/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
546/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
547/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
548/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
554/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
563/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
587/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
591/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
593/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
596/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
631/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
639/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
646/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
691/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
860/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
873/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
902/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
989/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
990/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
993/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
995/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1025/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1026/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1027/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1028/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1029/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1080/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1110/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1194/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1214/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1241/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1311/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1337/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1433/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1589/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1701/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1720/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1723/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1741/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1755/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
1900/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2001/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2002/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2049/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2078/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2080/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2082/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
2100/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2121/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2483/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2484/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2717/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
2967/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3050/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3128/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3306/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3389/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3690/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3784/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
3986/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4280/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4333/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4444/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4445/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
4899/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5004/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5005/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5009/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5013/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5051/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5060/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5101/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5190/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5223/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5357/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5432/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5631/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5666/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5800/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5900/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5901/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5985/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
5986/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6001/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6129/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6346/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6347/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6379/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6588/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6646/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6665/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6679/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
6699/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7001/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7070/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
7199/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8008/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8009/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8080/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
8081/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8200/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8222/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8443/tcp | http | cloudflare - |
8500/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
8888/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9042/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9100/tcp | jetdirect | - - |
9800/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
9999/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10161/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
10162/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
19638/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
20000/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
27017/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
32768/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49152/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49153/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49154/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49155/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49156/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
49157/tcp | tcpwrapped | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Dreamdata | Marketing automation, Analytics |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Osano | Cookie compliance |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://id.me/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| Dreamdata | Marketing automation, Analytics |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Osano | Cookie compliance |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://id.me/ | 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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: alla.ns.cloudflare.com, apollo.ns.cloudflare.com
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.id.me | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;rua=mailto:re+00e3218367af@inbound.dmarcdigests.com,mailto:reports@dmarc.cyber.dhs.gov,mailto:ruareport@id.me;ruf=mailto:rufreport@id.me;fo=0:1:d:s;" |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| id.me | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:0.spf.id.me ~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
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| zendesk1 | rsa | 912 | "v=DKIM1;t=s;n=core;k=rsa;p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA9IqdLrO3Zr2/56MHt8oQVCQorP0Bl2Fz9sM2tFBnJCdB/HogQmuudEg2xAovCN2PYpw44UijIvPuBoT9vxiv6ZCBJTLJXa82r6ke5rE4tbe9" "NKFIrVIb9S306cJDrnKFMDb8p0dU/Su0+eUR5gVAOtCuz2L8HAzs5edvsEvD/Fb4ny1RLNSEPZkIQLfGhVxQeWANm3+1Jwb/OBVXV9k0nKpWrpgqcmO7NzroJirp014RQY7rGi60JLUubc6XhvoFQBQrtOAdVlZC5wvfS1bgpq5kQpdP7cajIqWCeqxPTeo0ZUpey2ZcaygEsZz0Z3Gs5wDzyuqd7/ADpr2jNF7ozwIDAQAB" |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE | 89% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| Osano | Cookie compliance |
| Dreamdata | Marketing automation, Analytics |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Open Graph | 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.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| Osano | Cookie compliance |
| Dreamdata | Marketing automation, Analytics |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
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 |
|---|---|
| Ruby | Programming languages |
| Ruby on Rails | Web frameworks |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| Osano | Cookie compliance |
| Dreamdata | Marketing automation, Analytics |
| Cloudflare Bot Management | Security |
| HSTS | Security |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| DigiCert | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| Cloudflare | CDN |
| Open Graph | 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.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAjaXJYoJ/YTA2oR1AxpAwkYgGGFsLuBGBMsMYwZkZ0OZ5d/drrksHaVWQQ0LzwxfayQeO90zsXMOTXVA+JwvrXCxPn7AqM1nJKDEp1CWN/i+Qro+IupeBKj+5i12NoT9JVRJevKbi+FMlxXtNWZIM4EXW+Lsd7E17i5p+l9gq6k9Neg8xXMpzDGjxCpOsKvvFF" "RW/TkPAxcLhTTjKX8lvkAL4sd3EKzIejJkLCHL7xrG/WDsuY5w08KSsJIeu7InaPOHheSQ+rELSFhqMRF0y4PrPoDaXHnXV5tU2RvUZ+UhUqOsXfPgkomgybERKx7DS3GDfZwYv/6stAHp4YqXE/wIDAQAB" | |
| m2 | rsa | 1434 | "v=DKIM1;k=rsa;p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA202Dsq0veUx6iPN6dEcYREkwV/IKYJNAYwbNxSKKp2rH3a4dC1QrBWXfkmxAXX6U6XnaCbnVWPhPFTnBnoNV6A049paltDQd0nKmg44wjhYn/Ut7TDel0bZdQ9hdFExGZnIFEstPxXXA6bnhCaAqEIJoYnLHwDQF3yEZP8QIwjj5ONx1nG822tQdV3WkhVpxIUU" "qXKHsqOUcOkfm/jYD2gcjJ8Uo9z0SXuXCAdEuuuF2tk8ieQcemd7Vhf758SN5lSAik5Hy885dwznQk1fz2cfJyKiqCaKbHdAdY14nJSslf1DCSBYYJAidVMqlRHYCaHLy7FeQElfQink80N/r9QIDAQAB" |
| zendesk1 | rsa | 912 | "v=DKIM1;t=s;n=core;k=rsa;p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA9IqdLrO3Zr2/56MHt8oQVCQorP0Bl2Fz9sM2tFBnJCdB/HogQmuudEg2xAovCN2PYpw44UijIvPuBoT9vxiv6ZCBJTLJXa82r6ke5rE4tbe9" "NKFIrVIb9S306cJDrnKFMDb8p0dU/Su0+eUR5gVAOtCuz2L8HAzs5edvsEvD/Fb4ny1RLNSEPZkIQLfGhVxQeWANm3+1Jwb/OBVXV9k0nKpWrpgqcmO7NzroJirp014RQY7rGi60JLUubc6XhvoFQBQrtOAdVlZC5wvfS1bgpq5kQpdP7cajIqWCeqxPTeo0ZUpey2ZcaygEsZz0Z3Gs5wDzyuqd7/ADpr2jNF7ozwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| id.me | A | IPv4 address | 172.65.90.25 |
| id.me | A | IPv4 address | 172.65.90.27 |
| id.me | A | IPv4 address | 172.65.90.26 |
| id.me | A | IPv4 address | 172.65.90.24 |
| id.me | NS | Name server | alla.ns.cloudflare.com |
| id.me | NS | Name server | apollo.ns.cloudflare.com |
| id.me | MX | Mail server | 1 mxa-0054ed01.gslb.pphosted.com |
| id.me | MX | Mail server | 1 mxb-0054ed01.gslb.pphosted.com |
| id.me | MX | Mail server | 5 aspmx.l.google.com |
| id.me | MX | Mail server | 10 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| id.me | MX | Mail server | 10 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| id.me | MX | Mail server | 15 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| id.me | MX | Mail server | 15 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| id.me | SOA | Start of Authority | alla.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2387769149 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| id.me | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:78::90:0:180 |
| id.me | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:78::90:0:181 |
| id.me | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:78::90:0:182 |
| id.me | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:78::90:0:183 |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "OSSRH-87398" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "MS=ms44435230" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "lb2v9j77n1drqgzwlsmqvxkmhnm0kvk8" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "apple-domain-verification=cbvM6frp952RK4dE" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "SFMC-pvrJV4RY1B_HXxpZFLRZ_Lr39nj7-BstBI-nmosw" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "docusign=3bc0f094-2b00-49be-a2a8-57d487429b86" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "jamf-site-verification=OyFffUG83PuXAOzbaN8Urg" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "qase-7469224e7cfcdd6dcfd64b168964fa5359ab0f3e" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "openai-domain-verification=dv-kQ7setVpoo5raChGgDcvTz1l" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "docker-verification=02da437a-0770-4aa4-bd9b-6d36bd43c224" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "miro-verification=4697f40df2c2e28203ec6dea1ff335152442315d" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "cursor-domain-verification-4k3rnr=yShOJziYVtyjxkBtqn957JqVH" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "facebook-domain-verification=v99xznuvxsw7qtjv5czsepw2w5c9gw" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "uber-domain-verification=b1fa6b06-aee6-4b88-bfd2-ce5ce37ea980" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "anthropic-domain-verification-s8b3b9=Tg8B2ZEvo1JO2261Mnvk71Ab3" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "slack-domain-verification=FSmm5JvXzTcENw0WWsubh3LC5jWBK2ULCeRTEY2F" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=cW71dxHSO1JwQkb51iwEezmk2lw87IScqOUjOrCrglg" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "h1-domain-verification=VnECuxHdmQbpVVUibneGRz3ccvu8dTbn9vrMSXq1b5uDNEtH" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "adobe-idp-site-verification=75dda91a3a185ffcc72dbeac6ee04472eb363fd2683d7743ed6da35c912d59e6" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "atlassian-domain-verification=lnWJ4GfVdaAydCAHF8qRRlQf4A13OHl5nayYBZKgZPTUghKUmSwSckqEIECrsw2u" |
| id.me | TXT | Text record | "paloaltonetworks-site-verification=b81b234a64e4ceb88b6c482eaa2c310e3026ae165c7cbb232b63e6292c758693" |
| id.me | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:0.spf.id.me ~all" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "amazon.com; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "digicert.com; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "letsencrypt.org; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issue "pki.goog; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issuewild "amazon.com; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issuewild "digicert.com; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issuewild "letsencrypt.org; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| id.me | CAA | Certificate Authority Authorization | 0 issuewild "pki.goog; cansignhttpexchanges=yes" |
| _dmarc.id.me | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=reject;rua=mailto:re+00e3218367af@inbound.dmarcdigests.com,mailto:reports@dmarc.cyber.dhs.gov,mailto:ruareport@id.me;ruf=mailto:rufreport@id.me;fo=0:1:d:s;" |
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.