Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | XfjtNQy - Google Groups |
| Description: | No description found |
| IP address | 108.177.15.100 |
| Country | US  |
| AS number | AS15169 |
| Net name | Google LLC |
| IP address | 108.177.15.102 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS15169 |
| Net name | Google LLC |
| IP address | 108.177.15.139 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS15169 |
| Net name | Google LLC |
| IP address | 108.177.15.101 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS15169 |
| Net name | Google LLC |
| IP address | 108.177.15.113 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS15169 |
| Net name | Google LLC |
| IP address | 108.177.15.138 |
| Country | US |
| AS number | AS15169 |
| Net name | Google LLC |
80/tcp | http | gws - |
443/tcp | https | gws - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Closure Library | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://groups.google.com/g/xgelvz | NID | Set-Cookie: .google.com |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target application sets cookies with a domain scope that is too broad. Specifically, cookies intended for use within a particular application are configured in such a way that they can be accessed by multiple subdomains of the same primary domain.
Risk description
The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com, hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from the main site.
Recommendation
The `Domain` attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to `Domain=app.mysite.com`
Classification
| CWE | CWE-614 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://groups.google.com/g/xgelvz | 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://groups.google.com/g/xgelvz | 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 |
|---|---|
| Closure Library | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| 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.
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://groups.google.com/g/xgelvz | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: HEAD, GET` 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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| groups.google.com | A | IPv4 address | 142.251.168.113 |
| groups.google.com | A | IPv4 address | 142.251.168.139 |
| groups.google.com | A | IPv4 address | 142.251.168.100 |
| groups.google.com | A | IPv4 address | 142.251.168.138 |
| groups.google.com | A | IPv4 address | 142.251.168.102 |
| groups.google.com | A | IPv4 address | 142.251.168.101 |
| groups.google.com | MX | Mail server | 5 gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com |
| groups.google.com | MX | Mail server | 30 alt3.gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com |
| groups.google.com | MX | Mail server | 40 alt4.gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com |
| groups.google.com | MX | Mail server | 20 alt2.gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com |
| groups.google.com | MX | Mail server | 10 alt1.gmr-smtp-in.l.google.com |
| groups.google.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a00:1450:400c:c1f::66 |
| groups.google.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a00:1450:400c:c1f::64 |
| groups.google.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a00:1450:400c:c1f::65 |
| groups.google.com | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a00:1450:400c:c1f::8a |
| groups.google.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 redirect=_spf.google.com" |
| groups.google.com | CNAME | Canonical name | groups-alv.google.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
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 |
|---|---|
| HTTP/3 | 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.