Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | No title found |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 94.74.168.37 |
| country | IR |
| network_name | M247 Europe SRL |
| asn | AS9009 |
80/tcp | http | Microsoft IIS httpd 10 |
443/tcp | https | Microsoft IIS httpd 10 |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| IIS 10.0 | Web servers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| IIS 10.0 | Web servers |
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 | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://shirazartu.ac.ir/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/soratjalaseh_79th_komision_13930405.pdf | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 200 status code and the header: `Allow: OPTIONS, TRACE, GET, HEAD, POST` 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 |
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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-36326 | 9.8 | 0.01029 | 0.76499 | No | PHPMailer 6.1.8 through 6.4.0 allows object injection through Phar Deserialization via addAttachment with a UNC pathname. NOTE: this is similar to CVE-2018-19296, but arose because 6.1.8 fixed a functionality problem in which UNC pathnames were always considered unreadable by PHPMailer, even in safe contexts. As an unintended side effect, this fix eliminated the code that blocked addAttachment exploitation. |
| CVE-2020-28037 | 9.8 | 0.1273 | 0.9365 | No | is_blog_installed in wp-includes/functions.php in WordPress before 5.5.2 improperly determines whether WordPress is already installed, which might allow an attacker to perform a new installation, leading to remote code execution (as well as a denial of service for the old installation). |
| CVE-2020-28036 | 9.8 | 0.04802 | 0.88941 | No | wp-includes/class-wp-xmlrpc-server.php in WordPress before 5.5.2 allows attackers to gain privileges by using XML-RPC to comment on a post. |
| CVE-2020-28035 | 9.8 | 0.04877 | 0.89021 | No | WordPress before 5.5.2 allows attackers to gain privileges via XML-RPC. |
| CVE-2020-28032 | 9.8 | 0.20723 | 0.9531 | No | WordPress before 5.5.2 mishandles deserialization requests in wp-includes/Requests/Utility/FilteredIterator.php. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for WordPress 5.4.1
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.; Since the vulnerabilities were discovered using only version-based testing, the risk level for this finding will not exceed "high" severity. Critical risks will be assigned to vulnerabilities identified through accurate active testing methods.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| shirazartu.ac.ir | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:94.74.168.35 ip4:185.208.181.116 ~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
We checked 2056 selectors but found no DKIM records.
Vulnerability description
We found that no DKIM record was configured. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) record is not present for a domain, it means that outgoing emails from that domain are not cryptographically signed. DKIM is a critical component of email authentication, allowing recipients to verify that an email was genuinely sent from an authorized server and that the message has not been altered in transit. The absence of a DKIM record leaves the domain vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as attackers can send fraudulent emails that appear to originate from the domain without any cryptographic verification.
Risk description
Without a DKIM record, recipients have no way of verifying the integrity or authenticity of emails sent from the domain. This increases the likelihood of phishing and spoofing attacks, where malicious actors impersonate the domain to send fraudulent emails. This can lead to significant security incidents, such as credential theft, financial fraud, or the distribution of malware. Additionally, many email providers use DKIM as part of their spam and reputation filters, meaning that emails from a domain without DKIM may be flagged as spam or rejected, impacting the deliverability and reputation of legitimate emails.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing DKIM for your domain to enhance email security and protect your brand from email-based attacks. Generate a DKIM key pair (public and private keys), publish the public key in the DNS under the appropriate selector, and configure your email servers to sign outgoing messages using the private key. Ensure that the DKIM key length is at least 1024 bits to prevent cryptographic attacks. Regularly monitor DKIM signatures to ensure the system is functioning correctly and update keys periodically to maintain security.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.shirazartu.ac.ir | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;sp=quarantine;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc@shirazartu.ac.ir;ruf=mailto:dmarc@shirazartu.ac.ir;ri=86400;aspf=s;adkim=r;fo=1;" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 5.4.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| Slider Revolution 5.4.6.4 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Windows Server | Operating systems |
| IIS 10.0 | Web servers |
| BeTheme 20.7.5 | WordPress themes |
| W3 Total Cache | Caching, WordPress plugins |
| WPML 3.8.3 | WordPress plugins, Translation |
| WP-Statistics | Analytics, WordPress plugins |
| Max Mega Menu 3.6.2 | Widgets, WordPress plugins |
| jQuery Migrate 1.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Font Awesome | Font scripts |
| eNamad | 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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Windows Server 2016 | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| shirazartu.ac.ir | A | IPv4 address | 94.74.168.37 |
| shirazartu.ac.ir | NS | Name server | ns1.shirazartu.ac.ir |
| shirazartu.ac.ir | NS | Name server | ns2.shirazartu.ac.ir |
| shirazartu.ac.ir | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.shirazartu.ac.ir |
| shirazartu.ac.ir | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.shirazartu.ac.ir. didar.shirazartu.ac.ir. 366 900 600 86400 3600 |
| shirazartu.ac.ir | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 ip4:94.74.168.35 ip4:185.208.181.116 ~all" |
| _dmarc.shirazartu.ac.ir | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1;p=quarantine;sp=quarantine;pct=100;rua=mailto:dmarc@shirazartu.ac.ir;ruf=mailto:dmarc@shirazartu.ac.ir;ri=86400;aspf=s;adkim=r;fo=1;" |
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.