Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | 403 |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 34.107.134.59 |
| country | US  |
| network_name | Google LLC |
| asn | AS396982 |
80/tcp | http | - - |
443/tcp | https | Apache httpd - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| USWDS | UI frameworks |
| Django | Web frameworks |
| Closure Library | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.42.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Python | Programming languages |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Envoy | Reverse proxies |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| HSTS | Security |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752627/ | ncbi_sid | Set-Cookie: .nih.gov |
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 | Cookie Name | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752627/ | cloudpmc-viewer-csrftoken, ncbi_sid | Set-Cookie: cloudpmc-viewer-csrftoken=Q39EMVMtLWajnxrpgg5aaDm66NKjnFTf Set-Cookie: ncbi_sid=C4F6D5829953C053_11641SID |
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://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752627/ | cloudpmc-viewer-csrftoken, ncbi_sid | The server responded with Set-Cookie header(s) that does not specify the HttpOnly flag: Set-Cookie: cloudpmc-viewer-csrftoken=Q39EMVMtLWajnxrpgg5aaDm66NKjnFTf Set-Cookie: ncbi_sid=C4F6D5829953C053_11641SID |
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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
| USWDS | UI frameworks |
| Django | Web frameworks |
| Closure Library | JavaScript libraries |
| core-js 3.42.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Python | Programming languages |
| PWA | Miscellaneous |
| Priority Hints | Performance |
| Envoy | Reverse proxies |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| 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.
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://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752627/ | 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://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752627/ | 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 | Email Address: briana.mcgeough@ku.edu |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that this web application exposes email addresses, which might be unintended. While not inherently a vulnerability, this information could be leveraged in social engineering or spam related activities.
Risk description
The risk is that exposed email addresses within the application could be accessed by unauthorized parties. This could lead to privacy violations, spam, phishing attacks, or other forms of misuse.
Recommendation
Compartmentalize the application to have 'safe' areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow email addresses to go outside of the trust boundary, and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-200 |
| 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
| URL | Method | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752627/ | OPTIONS | We did a HTTP OPTIONS request. The server responded with a 405 status code and the header: `Allow: GET` 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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| USWDS | UI frameworks |
| Envoy | Reverse proxies |
| Google Cloud | IaaS |
| Qualtrics | Surveys |
| jQuery 3.6.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Google Tag Manager | Tag managers |
| Google Analytics | Analytics |
| HSTS | Security |
| Google Cloud CDN | CDN |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | A | IPv4 address | 34.107.134.59 |
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e1.googledomains.com |
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e2.googledomains.com |
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e3.googledomains.com |
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | NS | Name server | ns-cloud-e4.googledomains.com |
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-cloud-e1.googledomains.com. cloud-dns-hostmaster.google.com. 1 21600 3600 259200 300 |
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2600:1901:0:c831:: |
| pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=WAQT9KXQeIIYZOvQzeAJj0z6_oRlhqOB_275aJXIZsY" |
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 |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection