Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | astronauts-theatre.gr – Η ομάδα ξεκίνησε τις «πτήσεις» της το 2006, κάνοντας το παιδικό μας όνειρο πραγματικότητα |
| Description: | No description found |
| ip_address | 88.222.222.104 |
| country | LT  |
| network_name | Hostinger International Limited |
| asn | AS47583 |
| ip_address | 84.32.84.54 |
| country | LT |
| network_name | Hostinger International Limited |
| asn | AS47583 |
80/tcp | http | nginx - |
443/tcp | https | hcdn - |
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Hostinger | Hosting |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Google Font API | Font scripts |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| reCAPTCHA | Security |
| Hostinger | Hosting |
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 |
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
Evidence
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS Score | EPSS Percentile | CISA KEV | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-6722 | 9.5 | 0.00226 | 0.45313 | No | In PHP versions 8.2.* before 8.2.31, 8.3.* before 8.3.31, 8.4.* before 8.4.21, and 8.5.* before 8.5.6, the SOAP extension's object deduplication mechanism stores pointers to PHP objects in a global map without incrementing their reference counts. When an apache:Map node contains duplicate keys, processing the second entry overwrites the first in the temporary result map, freeing the original PHP object while its stale pointer remains in the map. A subsequent href reference to the freed node can copy the dangling pointer into the result. As PHP string allocations can reclaim the freed memory region, an attacker with control over the SOAP request body can exploit this use-after-free to achieve remote code execution. |
| CVE-2025-14179 | 7.4 | 0.00029 | 0.08437 | No | In PHP versions 8.2.* before 8.2.31, 8.3.* before 8.3.31, 8.4.* before 8.4.21, and 8.5.* before 8.5.6, the PDO Firebird driver improperly handles NUL bytes when preparing SQL queries. During token-by-token query construction, a string token containing a NUL byte is copied via strncat(), which stops at the NUL byte, dropping the closing quote and causing subsequent SQL tokens to be interpreted as part of the string. This allows SQL injection when attacker-controlled values are quoted via PDO::quote() and embedded in SQL statements. |
| CVE-2026-6735 | 7.3 | 0.00028 | 0.08267 | No | In PHP versions 8.2.* before 8.2.31, 8.3.* before 8.3.31, 8.4.* before 8.4.21, 8.5.* before 8.5.6, due to improper sanitation of user data, it allows an attacker to compose an URL, which will cause the target to execute arbitrary JavaScript code (XSS) on the target's machine when the target is viewing the PHP-FPM status page. |
| CVE-2026-7568 | 6.3 | 0.00042 | 0.1292 | No | In PHP versions 8.2.* before 8.2.31, 8.3.* before 8.3.31, 8.4.* before 8.4.21, and 8.5.* before 8.5.6, the metaphone() function in ext/standard/metaphone.c uses a signed int variable to track the current position within the input string. If a string longer than 2,147,483,647 bytes is passed, a signed integer overflow occurs, resulting in undefined behavior. This can lead to an out-of-bounds read, causing a segmentation fault or access to unrelated memory, and may affect the availability of the PHP process. |
| CVE-2026-7261 | 6.3 | 0.00045 | 0.13932 | No | In PHP versions 8.2.* before 8.2.31, 8.3.* before 8.3.31, 8.4.* before 8.4.21, and 8.5.* before 8.5.6, when SoapServer is configured with SOAP_PERSISTENCE_SESSION, the handler object is persisted across requests via session storage. However, in the case SOAP requests results in an error, the persistance is handled incorrectly, resulting in freeing the object while keeping a pointer to it, which may lead to use-after-free. This may lead to memory corruption, information disclosure, or process crashes, with confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact on the vulnerable system. |
Vulnerability description
Vulnerabilities found for PHP 8.3.30
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
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns1.dns-parking.com, ns2.dns-parking.com
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.astronauts-theatre.gr | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.astronauts-theatre.gr | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=none in the DMARC policy. The DMARC policy set to p=none means that the domain owner is not taking any action on emails that fail DMARC validation. This configuration effectively disables enforcement, allowing potentially spoofed or fraudulent emails to be delivered without any additional scrutiny.
Risk description
Emails that fail DMARC checks are still delivered to recipients. This leaves the domain highly vulnerable to email spoofing and phishing attacks, as malicious actors can impersonate the domain without facing any consequences from DMARC enforcement.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the DMARC policy to p=quarantine or, ideally, p=reject to actively block or quarantine emails that fail DMARC validation. This will enhance the security of your domain against spoofing and phishing attacks by ensuring that only legitimate emails are delivered.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.astronauts-theatre.gr | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
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.astronauts-theatre.gr | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with rua tag. When a DMARC record is not configured with the rua (Reporting URI for Aggregate Reports) tag, the domain owner misses out on critical feedback regarding the domain's email authentication performance. Aggregate reports are essential for monitoring how a domain's DMARC policy is applied across various mail servers and whether legitimate or malicious emails are being sent on behalf of the domain. Without this reporting, domain administrators have no visibility into how their DMARC policy is being enforced, which hinders their ability to detect potential spoofing or authentication issues.
Risk description
The absence of rua reporting creates a significant blind spot in the domain's email security posture. Without aggregate reports, domain administrators cannot track DMARC compliance across email sent from their domain, leaving them unaware of potential misconfigurations or unauthorized use of their domain for malicious purposes, such as phishing or spoofing. This lack of visibility increases the risk of undetected spoofing attempts, which could damage the domain's reputation and lead to financial, operational, or reputational harm. Moreover, legitimate email issues, such as misaligned SPF or DKIM configurations, may also go unnoticed, affecting email deliverability.
Recommendation
We recommend configuring the rua tag in the DMARC record to receive aggregate reports from mail servers. This tag should point to a reliable email address or monitoring service capable of handling DMARC aggregate reports, such as rua=mailto:dmarc-reports@example.com. These reports provide valuable insights into how email from the domain is being treated by receiving mail servers, highlighting potential authentication issues and attempts to spoof the domain. Regularly reviewing these reports will help ensure the DMARC policy is properly enforced and that any email authentication failures are addressed in a timely manner.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| astronauts-theatre.gr | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.flockmail.com include:spf.mx.hostinger.com include:relay.mailchannels.net ~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
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| astronauts-theatre.gr | A | IPv4 address | 195.200.9.196 |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | A | IPv4 address | 91.108.103.6 |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | NS | Name server | ns1.dns-parking.com |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | NS | Name server | ns2.dns-parking.com |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | MX | Mail server | 5 mx1.hostinger.com |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | MX | Mail server | 10 mx2.hostinger.com |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | SOA | Start of Authority | ns1.dns-parking.com. dns.hostinger.com. 2026051401 10000 2400 604800 3600 |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a02:4780:35:9e46:7ce6:d861:26ca:4ad0 |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2a02:4780:26:bf46:f06b:fb51:4c03:1de5 |
| astronauts-theatre.gr | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.flockmail.com include:spf.mx.hostinger.com include:relay.mailchannels.net ~all" |
| _dmarc.astronauts-theatre.gr | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=none" |
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 |
| MySQL | Databases |
| PHP 8.3.30 | Programming languages |
| Contact Form 7 6.1.4 | WordPress plugins, Form builders |
| Hostinger CDN | CDN |
| HTTP/3 | Miscellaneous |
| Underscore.js 1.13.7 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery Migrate 3.4.1 | JavaScript libraries |
| jQuery | JavaScript libraries |
| Clipboard.js | JavaScript libraries |
| Hostinger | Hosting |
| wpBakery | Page builders, 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 |
|---|---|
| Crestron XPanel control system | 90% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection