Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | BoKa Art – Hand made – Dekoracje do domu – architektura ogrodowa – Tworzymy niepowtarzalne donice, wazony i lampy – Każdy element wykonany ręcznie • Unikalne wzory • Autorskie projekty "Tam gdzie kończy się masowa produkcja, zaczyna się nasza sztuka" |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 188.210.222.233 |
| country | PL  |
| network_name | Dataspace P.S.A. |
| asn | AS50599 |
21/tcp | ftp | - - |
25/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.1 |
53/tcp | domain | PowerDNS Authoritative Server 4.8.4 |
80/tcp | http | LiteSpeed httpd - |
110/tcp | pop3 | Dovecot DirectAdmin pop3d - |
111/tcp | rpcbind | - 2-4 |
143/tcp | imap | Dovecot imapd - |
443/tcp | https | LiteSpeed httpd - |
465/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.1 |
587/tcp | smtp | Exim smtpd 4.99.1 |
993/tcp | imaps | - - |
995/tcp | pop3s | - - |
2222/tcp | https | - - |
3306/tcp | mysql | - - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.27.1.1 | Web servers |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://boka-art.pl/ | 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://boka-art.pl/ | 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
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://boka-art.pl/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
| OpenResty 1.27.1.1 | Web servers |
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://boka-art.pl/ | 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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | rsa | 786 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAu3+OV8SV257cohIR80sQeSeKv2sahRUEdACX4zoMLEwMOBqtaE2fD2p4VJ1JP8nU+Krx8VD+8NPr5frSzNxi0T3" "rXXGo/clI7z30flSs6bwy96e/m046ojGYOvNGXdmMuxHfToab+tWfouC8zZXKrzY6yOkCvJz316U6khHnshlUESgaKTr/fUsR+y5KzPNvdjwTwnqng7SoweKSg3vUZiXb5RFU52/R2Ct5BqxmQiw0z" "h6WhX0aQcizpFrlT+6qjouPCpQoKf0Kfs3h+X88KcxtFmyz/KWMhRa8I5lh13RKXfseD0c5B86cHLxI1Ptst5gwgzWUsa9N869JUroTgQIDAQAB" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DKIM key length is under 1024-bit. When a DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) key length is under 1024-bit, it is considered weak by modern cryptographic standards. Shorter key lengths, such as 512 or 768 bits, are vulnerable to brute-force attacks, where an attacker could potentially forge a valid DKIM signature for a domain. This undermines the entire purpose of DKIM, which is to authenticate email messages and prevent email spoofing by verifying that the message headers have not been tampered with. A DKIM key under 1024 bits significantly reduces the difficulty for attackers to break the signature.
Risk description
The primary risk of using a DKIM key with fewer than 1024 bits is that it weakens the domain's email authentication security, making it more susceptible to brute-force attacks. If an attacker successfully forges a DKIM signature, they can impersonate legitimate senders and send fraudulent or phishing emails that appear authentic to the recipient. This can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and an increased risk of targeted attacks, as recipients are more likely to trust emails that pass DKIM verification.
Recommendation
We recommend using a DKIM key with a length of at least 1024 bits. Ideally, 2048-bit keys should be used, as they provide a higher level of security and are more resistant to brute-force attacks. Organizations should regularly audit their DKIM configurations and rotate cryptographic keys periodically to maintain security. In addition, any DKIM keys that are less than 1024 bits should be immediately replaced with stronger keys to prevent exploitation.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.boka-art.pl | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; pct=100; sp=none; rua=mailto:spam-reports@boka-art.pl" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.
Risk description
While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.
Recommendation
We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.boka-art.pl | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; pct=100; sp=none; rua=mailto:spam-reports@boka-art.pl" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with ruf tag. A missing ruf (forensic reporting) tag in a DMARC record indicates that the domain owner has not enabled the collection of detailed failure reports. Forensic reports provide valuable insights into specific instances where emails fail DMARC authentication. Without the ruf tag, the domain administrator loses the ability to receive and analyze these reports, making it difficult to investigate individual email failures or identify targeted phishing or spoofing attacks that may be exploiting weaknesses in the email authentication setup.
Risk description
Without forensic reports (ruf), domain owners have limited visibility into the specifics of failed DMARC validation. This means potential malicious activity, such as email spoofing or phishing attempts, might go unnoticed until they result in more significant security breaches or reputational damage. Forensic reports allow for quick response to email abuses by providing detailed information about the failure, including the header information of the emails involved. The absence of this data hampers an organization's ability to identify and mitigate threats targeting its domain, increasing the risk of ongoing spoofing and fraud.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the ruf tag in the DMARC record. This tag specifies where forensic reports should be sent, providing the domain owner with detailed data on DMARC validation failures. Forensic reports allow administrators to analyze why certain emails failed authentication, making it easier to fine-tune DMARC policies or address potential vulnerabilities. Ensure that the ruf email address belongs to a secure and trusted location capable of handling sensitive email data.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.boka-art.pl | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; pct=100; sp=none; rua=mailto:spam-reports@boka-art.pl" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is configured with sp=none, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. This allows subdomains to send emails without being subject to DMARC checks, making it easier for attackers to spoof emails from these subdomains. Subdomains are often overlooked in email security, and attackers can exploit this misconfiguration to launch phishing or spoofing attacks from seemingly legitimate subdomains of a protected domain.
Risk description
When the DMARC record is configured with sp=none, subdomains are not subject to DMARC enforcement, allowing attackers to spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked. This creates a significant risk of phishing and impersonation attacks, where malicious emails appear to originate from trusted subdomains. These spoofed emails can be used to deceive users or damage the organization's reputation, undermining the security benefits of DMARC for the primary domain.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend that the subdomain policy should be updated to sp=reject to ensure that any email failing DMARC checks from subdomains is automatically rejected. This will help prevent unauthorized emails from being sent from subdomains, reducing the risk of spoofing and phishing. Additionally, it's important to regularly monitor DMARC reports to track email activity from subdomains and adjust policies as needed to maintain consistent security across the entire domain.
Evidence
We managed to detect a publicly accessible File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service. PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 21/tcp open ftp
Vulnerability description
We found that the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) service is publicly accessible. The FTP enables client systems to connect to upload and download files. Nonetheless, FTP lacks encryption for the data exchanged between the server and the client, leaving all transferred data exposed in plaintext.
Risk description
Exposing this service online can enable attackers to execute man-in-the-middle attacks, capturing sensitive user credentials and the contents of files because FTP operates without encryption. The entirety of the communication between the client and the server remains unsecured in plaintext. This acquired information could further facilitate additional attacks within the network.
Recommendation
We recommend turning off FTP access over the Internet and instead using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) that mandates two-factor authentication (2FA). If the FTP service is essential for business purposes, we recommend limiting access only from designated IP addresses using a firewall. Furthermore, utilizing SFTP (Secure File Transfer Protocol) is recommended as this protocol employs encryption to secure data transfers.
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.seohost.pl, ns2.seohost.pl
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not implement DNS Cookies or uses them insecurely. DNS Cookies help prevent DNS-based attacks, such as spoofing and amplification attacks.
Risk description
The risk exists because without DNS Cookies, the server is vulnerable to DNS spoofing and amplification attacks. Attackers can manipulate responses or use the server in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, compromising network availability and security.
Recommendation
We recommend enabling DNS Cookies to prevent spoofed DNS responses. Ensure proper cookie validation is implemented to mitigate DNS amplification attacks. Regularly update DNS servers to support the latest DNS security features.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| boka-art.pl | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 redirect=_spf-h32.microhost.pl" |
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | rsa | 786 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAu3+OV8SV257cohIR80sQeSeKv2sahRUEdACX4zoMLEwMOBqtaE2fD2p4VJ1JP8nU+Krx8VD+8NPr5frSzNxi0T3" "rXXGo/clI7z30flSs6bwy96e/m046ojGYOvNGXdmMuxHfToab+tWfouC8zZXKrzY6yOkCvJz316U6khHnshlUESgaKTr/fUsR+y5KzPNvdjwTwnqng7SoweKSg3vUZiXb5RFU52/R2Ct5BqxmQiw0z" "h6WhX0aQcizpFrlT+6qjouPCpQoKf0Kfs3h+X88KcxtFmyz/KWMhRa8I5lh13RKXfseD0c5B86cHLxI1Ptst5gwgzWUsa9N869JUroTgQIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| boka-art.pl | A | IPv4 address | 188.210.222.233 |
| boka-art.pl | NS | Name server | ns1.seohost.pl |
| boka-art.pl | NS | Name server | ns2.seohost.pl |
| boka-art.pl | MX | Mail server | 10 mail.boka-art.pl |
| boka-art.pl | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.seohost.pl. hostmaster.boka-art.pl. 2025081310 2000 3600 1209600 86400 |
| boka-art.pl | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 redirect=_spf-h32.microhost.pl" |
| _dmarc.boka-art.pl | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; adkim=s; pct=100; sp=none; rua=mailto:spam-reports@boka-art.pl" |
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 |
| Slider Revolution 6.7.36 | Widgets, Photo galleries |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 8.2.30 | Programming languages |
| Bootstrap | UI frameworks |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.1 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| LiteSpeed | Web servers |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Typed.js 1.1.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| prettyPhoto | JavaScript libraries |
| OWL Carousel | JavaScript libraries |
| Moment.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Magnific Popup 1.1.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Lodash | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery UI | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| imagesLoaded 5.0.0 | JavaScript libraries |
| Redux Framework 4.5.7 | WordPress plugins |
| WooCommerce 10.1.4 | Ecommerce, WordPress plugins |
| Smash Balloon Instagram Feed | WordPress plugins |
| Elementor 3.31.2 | Page builders, WordPress plugins |
| MailChimp | Marketing automation, Email |
| MailChimp for WordPress 4.10.6 | WordPress plugins, Marketing automation |
| Max Mega Menu 3.6.2 | Widgets, WordPress plugins |
| Instagram Feed for WordPress | Widgets, WordPress plugins |
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
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| Linux 5.3 - 5.4 | 93% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection