Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://lydra.fr/

Scanned target: https://lydra.fr/

Submitted: Aug 18, 2025 from CV

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Screenshot could not be taken.

Title:	Home - Lydra \| Artisans DevOps \| Lydra \| Artisans DevOps
Description:	Description will go into a meta tag in <head />

IP Information

ip_address	51.158.66.73
country	FR
network_name	Scaleway S.a.s
asn	AS12876

Open Ports

22/tcp	ssh	OpenSSH 9.2p1 Debian 2+deb12u4
80/tcp	http	- -
443/tcp	https	- -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Algolia DocSearch	Widgets
Docusaurus 3.8.1	Documentation, Static site generator
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
React	JavaScript frameworks
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Algolia	Search engines
RSS	Miscellaneous

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Algolia DocSearch	Widgets
Docusaurus 3.8.1	Documentation, Static site generator
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
React	JavaScript frameworks
Webpack	Miscellaneous
Algolia	Search engines
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.

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://lydra.fr/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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://lydra.fr/	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://lydra.fr/	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

URL	Evidence
https://lydra.fr/	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
Missing: https://lydra.fr/.well-known/security.txt

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://lydra.fr/blog/atom.xml	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: `/etc/gitlab-runner/config.toml`

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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:support@lydra.fr"

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
_dmarc.lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:support@lydra.fr"

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.lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:support@lydra.fr"

Vulnerability description

We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.

Risk description

Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.

Recommendation

We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1392	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAxoFRVuSKzBqSSopoZ+mCATOGLw8lkqqpQ1vrAYVFED8Wj2Csp6Tz/e1uON7/lUmq0DSWgxqIgdPBsgtcsgcfeG5EmuPUrfA9dDbGqUasXqv68j376ckPecCaiaObs3Dj4bjcRFCX8xN6jSfmr/1rRrWhnm8oWcIgC2tIE0Kovrv9w2T31RQHye518FkD" "U+7O57AJ85b7sf+v6tRAYAWSHKOtj5vW7STTiPj51Musra9sTiyOZmU52RSw+oU8hx8Pm+X9McK1g3WWR9qiCsU8t0ELs7h+3RVx5fh6uxkpU+YtQ3jvN9dWouN4HF9kJSk/jpj0awfgG/w6siHqwY48OQIDAQAB;"
mail	rsa	1296	"k=rsa;p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDeMVIzrCa3T14JsNY0IRv5/2V1/v2itlviLQBwXsa7shBD6TrBkswsFUToPyMRWC9tbR/5ey0nRBH0ZVxp+lsmTxid2Y2z+FApQ6ra2VsXfbJP3HE6wAO0YTVEJt1TmeczhEd2Jiz/fcabIISgXEdSpTYJhb0ct0VJRxcg4c8c7wIDAQAB"

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
lydra.fr	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 a mx include:_spf.6clones.net include:spf.tipimail.com include:spf.sendinblue.com include:inbound.systeme.io -all"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Docusaurus 3.8.1	Documentation, Static site generator
Algolia	Search engines
React	JavaScript frameworks
Algolia DocSearch	Widgets
Webpack	Miscellaneous
RSS	Miscellaneous
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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
lydra.fr	A	IPv4 address	51.158.66.73
lydra.fr	NS	Name server	ns110.ovh.net
lydra.fr	NS	Name server	dns110.ovh.net
lydra.fr	MX	Mail server	5 mail1.6clones.net
lydra.fr	SOA	Start of Authority	dns110.ovh.net. tech.ovh.net. 2025081300 86400 3600 3600000 60
lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"Sendinblue-code:3465e69bfac33bee4c30d89de60c2889"
lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"openai-domain-verification=dv-EcbseARaE0wl7WnOxgGs6AgU"
lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=3erc6WSuWcxIkaPeSt3_UV4iwIyoApowVGMLE3_Oyqo"
lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=pSGL1VfunDzhwAepDlUdmAD3CmaVM68Bk6yBUp-tFvI"
lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"spf2.0/pra a mx include:_spf.6clones.net include:spf.tipimail.com include:spf.sendinblue.com include:inbound.systeme.io -all"
lydra.fr	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 a mx include:_spf.6clones.net include:spf.tipimail.com include:spf.sendinblue.com include:inbound.systeme.io -all"
_dmarc.lydra.fr	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:support@lydra.fr"

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.

Operating System	Accuracy
Linux 4.15 - 5.6	100%

Evidence

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
default	rsa	1392	"v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAxoFRVuSKzBqSSopoZ+mCATOGLw8lkqqpQ1vrAYVFED8Wj2Csp6Tz/e1uON7/lUmq0DSWgxqIgdPBsgtcsgcfeG5EmuPUrfA9dDbGqUasXqv68j376ckPecCaiaObs3Dj4bjcRFCX8xN6jSfmr/1rRrWhnm8oWcIgC2tIE0Kovrv9w2T31RQHye518FkD" "U+7O57AJ85b7sf+v6tRAYAWSHKOtj5vW7STTiPj51Musra9sTiyOZmU52RSw+oU8hx8Pm+X9McK1g3WWR9qiCsU8t0ELs7h+3RVx5fh6uxkpU+YtQ3jvN9dWouN4HF9kJSk/jpj0awfgG/w6siHqwY48OQIDAQAB;"
mail	rsa	1296	"k=rsa;p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDeMVIzrCa3T14JsNY0IRv5/2V1/v2itlviLQBwXsa7shBD6TrBkswsFUToPyMRWC9tbR/5ey0nRBH0ZVxp+lsmTxid2Y2z+FApQ6ra2VsXfbJP3HE6wAO0YTVEJt1TmeczhEd2Jiz/fcabIISgXEdSpTYJhb0ct0VJRxcg4c8c7wIDAQAB"