Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://allsafe.ro/ (redirect)

Scanned target: https://www.allsafe.ro/

Submitted: April 19, 2025 from TV

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

medium

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	All Safe
Description:	Oferim o varietate de servicii pentru a ajuta companiile să fie pregătite atunci când se vor confrunta cu atacuri cibernetice reale.

IP Information

IP address	104.21.16.1
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

IP address	104.21.112.1
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

IP address	104.21.48.1
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

IP address	104.21.64.1
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

IP address	104.21.80.1
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

IP address	104.21.96.1
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

IP address	104.21.32.1
Country	-
AS number	AS13335
Net name	Cloudflare Inc

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
443/tcp	https	cloudflare -
8080/tcp	http	Cloudflare http proxy -
8443/tcp	http	cloudflare -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP 7.4.33	Programming languages
PWA	Miscellaneous
Cloudflare	CDN
Cookiebot	Cookie compliance
reCAPTCHA	Security
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
HSTS	Security
RSS	Miscellaneous

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Risk Level	CVSS	CVE	Summary	Affected software
	6.2	CVE-2022-4900	A vulnerability was found in PHP where setting the environment variable PHP_CLI_SERVER_WORKERS to a large value leads to a heap buffer overflow.	php 7.4.33
	5.3	CVE-2024-5458	In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly.	php 7.4.33

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 They are usually related to outdated systems and expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly denial of service attacks.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

URL	Evidence
https://www.allsafe.ro/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files. default-src: data: URI in default-src allows the execution of unsafe scripts. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. object-src: We recommend restricting object-src to 'none'. script-src: data: URI in script-src allows the execution of unsafe scripts. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers.

https://www.allsafe.ro/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:script-src: 'self' can be problematic if you host JSONP, Angular or user uploaded files. default-src: data: URI in default-src allows the execution of unsafe scripts. base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for all relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'. object-src: We recommend restricting object-src to 'none'. script-src: data: URI in script-src allows the execution of unsafe scripts. script-src: ''unsafe-inline'' allows the execution of unsafe in-page scripts and event handlers.

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
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
PHP 7.4.33	Programming languages
PWA	Miscellaneous
Cloudflare	CDN
Cookiebot	Cookie compliance
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

URL
Missing: https://www.allsafe.ro/.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.

Classification

OWASP Top 10 - 2017	A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021	A5 - Security Misconfiguration

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Risk level	CVSS	CVE	Summary
	6.2	CVE-2022-4900	A vulnerability was found in PHP where setting the environment variable PHP_CLI_SERVER_WORKERS to a large value leads to a heap buffer overflow.
	5.3	CVE-2024-5458	In PHP versions 8.1.* before 8.1.29, 8.2.* before 8.2.20, 8.3.* before 8.3.8, due to a code logic error, filtering functions such as filter_var when validating URLs (FILTER_VALIDATE_URL) for certain types of URLs the function will result in invalid user information (username + password part of URLs) being treated as valid user information. This may lead to the downstream code accepting invalid URLs as valid and parsing them incorrectly.

Vulnerability description

Vulnerabilities found for PHP 7.4.33

Risk description

These vulnerabilities expose the affected applications to the risk of unauthorized access to confidential data and possibly to denial of service attacks. An attacker could search for an appropriate exploit (or create one) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to attack the system. Notes: - The vulnerabilities are identified based on the server's version.; - Only the first 5 vulnerabilities with the highest risk are shown for each port.;

Recommendation

We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risks imposed by these vulnerabilities.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
allsafe.ro	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:_spf.protonmail.ch mx include:spf.protection.outlook.com ~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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

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.allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

Vulnerability description

We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.

Risk description

The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.

Recommendation

We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.

Evidence

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
_dmarc.allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

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

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
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
allsafe.ro	A	IPv4 address	104.21.64.1
allsafe.ro	A	IPv4 address	104.21.48.1
allsafe.ro	A	IPv4 address	104.21.112.1
allsafe.ro	A	IPv4 address	104.21.32.1
allsafe.ro	A	IPv4 address	104.21.96.1
allsafe.ro	A	IPv4 address	104.21.16.1
allsafe.ro	A	IPv4 address	104.21.80.1
allsafe.ro	NS	Name server	dean.ns.cloudflare.com
allsafe.ro	NS	Name server	veronica.ns.cloudflare.com
allsafe.ro	MX	Mail server	0 allsafe-ro.mail.protection.outlook.com
allsafe.ro	SOA	Start of Authority	dean.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2370292065 10000 2400 604800 1800
allsafe.ro	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::6815:1001
allsafe.ro	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::6815:5001
allsafe.ro	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::6815:3001
allsafe.ro	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::6815:7001
allsafe.ro	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::6815:6001
allsafe.ro	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::6815:4001
allsafe.ro	AAAA	IPv6 address	2606:4700:3030::6815:2001
allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"MS=ms50001227"
allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"google-site-verification=8KydCUYJZ1y82JRosfiSqrI5Fg-H5uBCxZbegckv4Kw"
allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"protonmail-verification=6891e115af7e96286d841a6f465e059ec1bb6576"
allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"sendinblue-code:17b6cb601c231d258f9ac0db04b0eeb0"
allsafe.ro	SPF	Sender Policy Framework	"v=spf1 include:_spf.protonmail.ch mx include:spf.protection.outlook.com ~all"
_dmarc.allsafe.ro	TXT	Text record	"v=DMARC1; p=none"

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

DKIM selector	Key type	Key size	Value
mail	rsa	1296	"k=rsa;p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDeMVIzrCa3T14JsNY0IRv5/2V1/v2itlviLQBwXsa7shBD6TrBkswsFUToPyMRWC9tbR/5ey0nRBH0ZVxp+lsmTxid2Y2z+FApQ6ra2VsXfbJP3HE6wAO0YTVEJt1TmeczhEd2Jiz/fcabIISgXEdSpTYJhb0ct0VJRxcg4c8c7wIDAQAB"

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
PHP 7.4.33	Programming languages
Google Tag Manager	Tag managers
Cookiebot	Cookie compliance
Cloudflare Browser Insights	Analytics, RUM
reCAPTCHA	Security
HSTS	Security
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
RSS	Miscellaneous
PWA	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

Software / Version	Category
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.