Vulnerability Scan Result

Target:

https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/

Scanned target: https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/

Submitted: Apr 19, 2026 from GY

Public Scan

Scan mode: Passive (non-intrusive)

Summary

low

Info

Low

Medium

High

Critical

Screenshot

Title:	Ghostfoot Training Group: Elevate Your Security Skills Today \| Ghostfoot Training Group
Description:	At Ghostfoot Training Group, we empower executive protection professionals with modern security practices. Our training ensures you stay ahead of emerging threats, enhancing your ability to serve and protect clients effectively in a dynamic environment. Join us to refine your skills and knowledge in private security.

IP Information

ip_address	34.120.137.41
country	US
network_name	Google LLC
asn	AS396982

Open Ports

80/tcp	http	- -
443/tcp	https	OpenResty web app server -

Web Technologies

Software / Version	Category
Google Font API	Font scripts
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
OpenResty	Web servers
Cloudflare	CDN
Hostinger	Hosting
HSTS	Security

Web Application Vulnerabilities

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Google Font API	Font scripts
HTTP/3	Miscellaneous
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
Open Graph	Miscellaneous
OpenResty	Web servers
Cloudflare	CDN
Hostinger	Hosting
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

Evidence

URL	Evidence
https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/_astro-1771506426521/	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
https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/robots.txt

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.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/_astro-1771506426521/	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://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/	Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the `<meta/>` tag with name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

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

URL	Evidence
https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/_astro-1771506426521/	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

URL	Evidence
https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/	Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'. 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'. script-src: script-src directive is missing. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'.

https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:frame-ancestors: This directive tells the browser whether you want to allow your site to be framed or not. By preventing a browser from framing your site you can defend against attacks like clickjacking. The recommended value is 'none' or 'self'. 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'. script-src: script-src directive is missing. default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not been specified. object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommend setting it to 'none'.

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-1021
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Evidence

URL
Missing: https://www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com/.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

CWE	CWE-1188
OWASP Top 10 - 2017
OWASP Top 10 - 2021

Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

Operating System	Accuracy
Crestron XPanel control system	90%

Evidence

Software / Version	Category
Nginx	Web servers, Reverse proxies
OpenResty	Web servers
HSTS	Security
Hostinger	Hosting
Cloudflare	CDN
HTTP/3	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

Domain Queried	DNS Record Type	Description	Value
www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com	A	IPv4 address	34.120.137.41
www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com	AAAA	IPv6 address	2600:1901:0:84ef::
www.ghostfoottraininggroup.com	CNAME	Canonical name	connect.hostinger.com

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.