Vulnerability Scan Result

Title: | Polícia de Segurança Pública :: Departamento de Segurança Privada |
Description: | Bem-vindo ao portal da segurança privada da Polícia de Segurança Pública (PSP). |
ip_address | 185.126.90.46 |
country | PT ![]() |
network_name | Secretaria Geral Ministerio Da Administracao Interna |
asn | AS197802 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
ArcGIS API for JavaScript | Maps |
Bootstrap 2 | UI frameworks |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
Java | Programming languages |
JavaServer Faces | Web frameworks |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
JSP | Web frameworks |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
---|---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/ | TSf88d3586027, TS0143b5e2 | Set-Cookie: TSf88d3586027=083771d179ab2000c2c88449d302d2bf40adefbe2f4d1f7876100cc67d2799185a77323a4e99de4008f09e21ec11300086ef875136e0b2aad53772ef31fc4098f829275e8219c81432c7033381eff521ce584db182ec81a3739496c8b51c9d87 Set-Cookie: TS0143b5e2=01a86827a7f71d5d0b568e45ce539f8873b6aa958f749d0e6df06ea6c48175da5ac36e145b220053883a0259c05191aaf6ae171c112812663ad7c37ec1503fed83574030f4ae32a1a441e07a31f89910edc72baff7 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the Secure
flag, which means the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is made. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk exists that an attacker will intercept the clear-text communication between the browser and the server and he will steal the cookie of the user. If this is a session cookie, the attacker could gain unauthorized access to the victim's web session.
Recommendation
Whenever a cookie contains sensitive information or is a session token, then it should always be passed using an encrypted channel. Ensure that the secure flag is set for cookies containing such sensitive information.
Classification
CWE | CWE-614 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
---|---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/ | TSf88d3586027, TS0143b5e2 | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: TSf88d3586027=083771d179ab2000c2c88449d302d2bf40adefbe2f4d1f7876100cc67d2799185a77323a4e99de4008f09e21ec11300086ef875136e0b2aad53772ef31fc4098f829275e8219c81432c7033381eff521ce584db182ec81a3739496c8b51c9d87 Set-Cookie: TS0143b5e2=01a86827a7f71d5d0b568e45ce539f8873b6aa958f749d0e6df06ea6c48175da5ac36e145b220053883a0259c05191aaf6ae171c112812663ad7c37ec1503fed83574030f4ae32a1a441e07a31f89910edc72baff7 |
Vulnerability description
We found that a cookie has been set without the HttpOnly
flag, which means it can be accessed by potentially malicious JavaScript code running inside the web page. The root cause for this usually revolves around misconfigurations in the code or server settings.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker who injects malicious JavaScript code on the page (e.g. by using an XSS attack) can access the cookie and can send it to another site. In case of a session cookie, this could lead to session hijacking.
Recommendation
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
Classification
CWE | CWE-1004 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
---|---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/ | TS0143b5e2 | Set-Cookie: .sigesponline.psp.pt |
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 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/ | 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 | Evidence |
---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/ | 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://sigesponline.psp.pt/ | 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 |
---|---|
ArcGIS API for JavaScript | Maps |
Bootstrap 2 | UI frameworks |
Google Font API | Font scripts |
Java | Programming languages |
JavaServer Faces | Web frameworks |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
JSP | Web frameworks |
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://sigesponline.psp.pt/ | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
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
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/index.xhtml | POST | Query: windowId=0e8 Body: formLobby=formLobby logar=Entrar putPassword=Secure123456$ userNamePut=1d3d2d231d2dd4 Headers: Content-Type=application/x-www-form-urlencoded User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0... | Possible API endpoint found at |
Vulnerability description
We found API endpoints while crawling the given web application.
Risk description
These endpoints may represent an attack surface for malicious actors interested in API-specific vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
Use the API Scanner to perform a more thorough vulnerability check for these endpoints, if an API specification is present.
Evidence
URL | Evidence |
---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/ |
|
Vulnerability description
We have discovered that the target application presents a login interface that could be a potential target for attacks. While login interfaces are standard for user authentication, they can become vulnerabilities if not properly secured.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this interface to mount brute force attacks against known passwords and usernames combinations leaked throughout the web.
Recommendation
Ensure each interface is not bypassable using common knowledge of the application or leaked credentials using occasional password audits.
Evidence
URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
---|---|---|---|
https://sigesponline.psp.pt/pages/actividades_ilicitas/criar.xhtml | 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 Cookies: InfoSG=!RpJi0gOQJifL40gc7DiLM1VD3Tzmbs9UlwPfbq0UEcWLqrIQnTWL8yw9DSArid41E6o/NGxBja6nPg== JSESSIONID=Nva5Mubsd36QpdYm-ZT60uC- TS0143b5e2=01a868... | The following form allows file upload: ` |
Vulnerability description
We found the file upload functionality in the web application. While this is not a security issue by itself, it may represent a first step in an attack involving storing data on the target server.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker might use the file upload functionality for path traversal, persistent XSS, transmission of malware or denial of service, if such vulnerabilities are present.
Recommendation
Use a server-generated filename, inspect the content of uploaded files, enforce a whitelist of non-executable file types and a size limit, and reject attempts to upload archive formats such as ZIP.
Classification
CWE | CWE-434 |
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect that Bootstrap has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 2 End-of-life date: 2013-08-19 Latest version for the cycle: 2.3.2 This release cycle (2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2012-01-31 and its latest release date was 2013-07-26. The support ended on 2013-08-19.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
We managed to detect that Bootstrap has reached the End-of-Life (EOL).
Version detected: 2 End-of-life date: 2013-08-19 Latest version for the cycle: 2.3.2 This release cycle (2) doesn't have long-term-support (LTS). The cycle was released on 2012-01-31 and its latest release date was 2013-07-26. The support ended on 2013-08-19.
Risk description
Using end-of-life (EOL) software poses significant security risks for organizations. EOL software no longer receives updates, including critical security patches. This creates a vulnerability landscape where known and potentially new security flaws remain unaddressed, making the software an attractive target for malicious actors. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, disrupt services, or steal sensitive data. Moreover, without updates, compatibility issues arise with newer technologies, leading to operational inefficiencies and increased potential for system failures. Additionally, regulatory and compliance risks accompany the use of EOL software. Many industries have strict data protection regulations that require up-to-date software to ensure the highest security standards. Non-compliance can result in hefty fines and legal consequences. Organizations also risk damaging their reputation if a breach occurs due to outdated software, eroding customer trust and potentially leading to a loss of business. Therefore, continuing to use EOL software undermines both security posture and business integrity, necessitating timely upgrades and proactive risk management strategies.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risks associated with end-of-life (EOL) software, it's crucial to take proactive steps. Start by identifying any EOL software currently in use within your organization. Once identified, prioritize upgrading or replacing these applications with supported versions that receive regular updates and security patches. This not only helps close security gaps but also ensures better compatibility with newer technologies, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.Additionally, develop a comprehensive software lifecycle management plan. This plan should include regular audits to identify upcoming EOL dates and a schedule for timely updates or replacements. Train your IT staff and users about the importance of keeping software up to date and the risks associated with using outdated versions. By maintaining a proactive approach to software management, you can significantly reduce security risks, ensure compliance with industry regulations, and protect your organization's reputation and customer trust.
Evidence
Software / Version | Category |
---|---|
Java | Programming languages |
ArcGIS API for JavaScript | Maps |
Bootstrap 2 | UI frameworks |
JSP | Web frameworks |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
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 |
---|---|
Java | Programming languages |
ArcGIS API for JavaScript | Maps |
Bootstrap 2 | UI frameworks |
JSP | Web frameworks |
jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
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 |
---|---|---|---|
sigesponline.psp.pt | A | IPv4 address | 185.126.90.46 |
sigesponline.psp.pt | TXT | Text record | "mtc=MzIwNjY3NzMtNTcxNy00MzkxLTg5YzktZjgxOGE2MDQxMjUw" |
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.