Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | How do I add or change the authentication method on my account? | Login.gov |
| Description: |
| ip_address | 65.8.131.108 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
| ip_address | 65.8.131.97 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
| ip_address | 65.8.131.38 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
| ip_address | 65.8.131.43 |
| country | US |
| network_name | Amazon.com, Inc. |
| asn | AS16509 |
80/tcp | http | Amazon CloudFront httpd - |
443/tcp | https | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon CloudFront | CDN |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.login.gov/help/manage-your-account/add-or-change-your-authentication-method/ | 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-1021 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://www.login.gov/help/manage-your-account/add-or-change-your-authentication-method/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| Amazon CloudFront | CDN |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| MySQL | Databases |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| HSTS | Security |
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
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-4800 | 8.1 | 0.01026 | 0.59067 | No | Impact: The fix for CVE-2021-23337 (https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-35jh-r3h4-6jhm) added validation for the variable option in _.template but did not apply the same validation to options.imports key names. Both paths flow into the same Function() constructor sink. When an application passes untrusted input as options.imports key names, an attacker can inject default-parameter expressions that execute arbitrary code at template compilation time. Additionally, _.template uses assignInWith to merge imports, which enumerates inherited properties via for..in. If Object.prototype has been polluted by any other vector, the polluted keys are copied into the imports object and passed to Function(). Patches: Users should upgrade to version 4.18.0. Workarounds: Do not pass untrusted input as key names in options.imports. Only use developer-controlled, static key names. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for Lodash 4.17.23
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 87% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| www.login.gov | A | IPv4 address | 65.8.131.43 |
| www.login.gov | A | IPv4 address | 65.8.131.38 |
| www.login.gov | A | IPv4 address | 65.8.131.97 |
| www.login.gov | A | IPv4 address | 65.8.131.108 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:b400:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:5c00:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:1200:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:f200:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:4a00:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:fa00:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:5200:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:9000:208a:a400:f:65e5:6140:93a1 |
| www.login.gov | CNAME | Canonical name | www.login.gov.external-domains-production.cloud.gov |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| WordPress | CMS, Blogs |
| Emotion | JavaScript frameworks, Development |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP | Programming languages |
| Amazon Web Services | PaaS |
| web-vitals | JavaScript libraries, RUM |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics GA4 | Analytics |
| DoubleClick Floodlight | Advertising |
| HSTS | Security |
| Amazon S3 | CDN |
| Amazon CloudFront | CDN |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Open Graph | Miscellaneous |
| Lodash 4.17.23 | 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.