Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | mariedeeco.ink |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 63.250.43.12 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Namecheap Inc |
| asn | AS22612 |
| ip_address | 63.250.43.11 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Namecheap Inc |
| asn | AS22612 |
22/tcp | ssh | - - |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| ThemezHut HitMag | WordPress themes |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| WordPress 6.8.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| 33Across | Advertising |
| DTScout | Advertising |
| HSTS | Security |
| RSS | Miscellaneous |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://mariedeeco.ink/ | 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 | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://mariedeeco.ink/ | 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 |
|
| https://mariedeeco.ink/archives/author/vanndycambo | 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 |
|
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application is serving mixed content. This occurs when initial HTML is loaded over a secure HTTPS connection, but other resources (such as images, videos, stylesheets, scripts) are loaded over an insecure HTTP connection. This is called mixed content because both HTTP and HTTPS content are being loaded to display the same page, and the initial request was secure over HTTPS.
Risk description
The risk is that the insecurely loaded resources (HTTP) on an otherwise secure page (HTTPS) can be intercepted or manipulated by attackers, potentially leading to eavesdropping or content tampering.
Recommendation
Ensure that all external resources the page references are loaded using HTTPS.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-311 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery 3.7.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| ThemezHut HitMag | WordPress themes |
| Twitter Emoji (Twemoji) | Font scripts |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| WordPress 6.8.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| 33Across | Advertising |
| DTScout | Advertising |
| 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.
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).
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.
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible SSH service.
Starting Nmap ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-06-13 17:59 EEST
Nmap scan report for mariedeeco.ink (63.250.43.12)
Host is up (0.14s latency).
Other addresses for mariedeeco.ink (not scanned): 63.250.43.11
rDNS record for 63.250.43.12: ingress-cinna.ewp.live
PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION
22/tcp open ssh (protocol 2.0)
| fingerprint-strings:
| NULL:
|_ SSH-2.0-Go
| ssh-auth-methods:
| Supported authentication methods:
|_ password
1 service unrecognized despite returning data. If you know the service/version, please submit the following fingerprint at https://nmap.org/cgi-bin/submit.cgi?new-service :
SF-Port22-TCP:V=7.93%I=7%D=6/13%Time=684C3CC1%P=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu%r(NULL
SF:,C,"SSH-2\.0-Go\r\n");
Service detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 10.83 seconds
Vulnerability description
We found that the SSH service with username/password authentication is publicly accessible. Network administrators often use remote administration protocols to control devices like switches, routers, and other essential systems. However, allowing these services to be accessible via the Internet can increase security risks, creating potential opportunities for attacks on the organization.
Risk description
Exposing this service online with username/password authentication can enable attackers to launch authentication attacks, like guessing login credentials, and potentially gaining unauthorized access. Vulnerabilities, such as unpatched software, protocol flaws, or backdoors could also be exploited. An example is the CVE-2024-3094 (XZ Utils Backdoor) vulnerability.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off SSH with username/password authentication access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the SSH service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, it is advisable to utilize SSH Public Key Authentication since it employs a key pair to verify the identity of a user or process.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| mariedeeco.ink | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.easywp.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
We didn't find any TXT records associated with the target.
Vulnerability description
We found that the target server has no DMARC policy configured. A missing DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance) policy means that the domain is not enforcing any DMARC policies to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks. Without DMARC, even if SPF (Sender Policy Framework) or DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) are configured, there is no mechanism to tell receiving email servers how to handle messages that fail authentication. This leaves the domain vulnerable to abuse, such as email spoofing and impersonation.
Risk description
Without a DMARC policy, your domain is highly vulnerable to email spoofing, allowing attackers to impersonate your brand and send fraudulent emails that appear legitimate. This can lead to phishing attacks targeting your customers, employees, or partners, potentially resulting in stolen credentials, financial loss, or unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Additionally, repeated spoofing attempts can severely damage your brand's reputation, as recipients may lose trust in communications from your domain, associating your brand with malicious activity. The absence of DMARC also prevents you from monitoring and mitigating email-based attacks, leaving your domain exposed to ongoing abuse.
Recommendation
We recommend implementing a DMARC policy for your domain. Start by configuring a DMARC record with a policy of p=none, which will allow you to monitor email flows without impacting legitimate emails. This initial setup helps identify how emails from your domain are being processed by recipient servers. Once you’ve verified that legitimate emails are passing SPF and DKIM checks, you can gradually enforce stricter policies like p=quarantine or p=reject to protect against spoofing and phishing attacks. Additionally, include rua and ruf email addresses in the DMARC record to receive aggregate and forensic reports. These reports will provide valuable insights into authentication failures and help you detect any spoofing attempts.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| mariedeeco.ink | A | IPv4 address | 63.250.43.12 |
| mariedeeco.ink | A | IPv4 address | 63.250.43.11 |
| mariedeeco.ink | NS | Name server | dns1.registrar-servers.com |
| mariedeeco.ink | NS | Name server | dns2.registrar-servers.com |
| mariedeeco.ink | MX | Mail server | 20 eforward5.registrar-servers.com |
| mariedeeco.ink | MX | Mail server | 15 eforward4.registrar-servers.com |
| mariedeeco.ink | MX | Mail server | 10 eforward1.registrar-servers.com |
| mariedeeco.ink | MX | Mail server | 10 eforward2.registrar-servers.com |
| mariedeeco.ink | MX | Mail server | 10 eforward3.registrar-servers.com |
| mariedeeco.ink | SOA | Start of Authority | dns1.registrar-servers.com. hostmaster.registrar-servers.com. 1749807172 43200 3600 604800 3601 |
| mariedeeco.ink | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.easywp.com ~all" |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Tomato 1.28 (Linux 2.4.20) | 100% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.8.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| ThemezHut HitMag | WordPress themes |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| DTScout | Advertising |
| 33Across | Advertising |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| HSTS | Security |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress 6.8.1 | CMS, Blogs |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| ThemezHut HitMag | WordPress themes |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| DTScout | Advertising |
| 33Across | Advertising |
| Sectigo | SSL/TLS certificate authorities |
| HSTS | Security |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
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.