Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Integrale oplossing voor o.a. GRC, ISMS, KAM, BCM & ESG |
| Description: | FullyInControl helpt jouw organisatie met één geïntegreerd platform voor risicobeheer, compliance, beleid, audits en continue verbetering. |
| ip_address | 35.214.219.244 |
| country | NL  |
| network_name | Google LLC |
| asn | AS19527 |
No open ports were found.
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://fullyincontrol.com/ | 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://fullyincontrol.com/ | 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://fullyincontrol.com/ | 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
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Nginx | Web servers, Reverse proxies |
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://fullyincontrol.com/ | 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 |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
We found insecure DNS cookie usage on the following nameservers: ns-489.awsdns-61.com, ns-732.awsdns-27.net, ns-1265.awsdns-30.org, ns-1933.awsdns-49.co.uk
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
We found insecure EDNS configuration on the following nameservers: ns-1933.awsdns-49.co.uk ns-1933.awsdns-49.co.uk:
Vulnerability description
We found that the server does not properly implement EDNS (Extension Mechanisms for DNS). EDNS allows larger DNS packets and supports modern features such as DNSSEC.
Risk description
The risk exists because improper or missing EDNS support can lead to truncated responses, degraded DNS performance, and compatibility issues with DNSSEC. This exposes users to risks such as incomplete DNS resolution and failed DNSSEC validation.
Recommendation
We recommend ensuring the proper implementation of EDNS on the DNS server. Update the DNS server software to support EDNS fully, including modern features like DNSSEC. Regularly test DNS configurations to ensure compliance and performance.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| fullyincontrol.com | A | IPv4 address | 35.214.219.244 |
| fullyincontrol.com | NS | Name server | ns-489.awsdns-61.com |
| fullyincontrol.com | NS | Name server | ns-732.awsdns-27.net |
| fullyincontrol.com | NS | Name server | ns-1265.awsdns-30.org |
| fullyincontrol.com | NS | Name server | ns-1933.awsdns-49.co.uk |
| fullyincontrol.com | MX | Mail server | 1 fullyincontrol-com.mail.eo.outlook.com |
| fullyincontrol.com | SOA | Start of Authority | ns-1933.awsdns-49.co.uk. awsdns-hostmaster.amazon.com. 1 7200 900 1209600 86400 |
| fullyincontrol.com | TXT | Text record | "openai-domain-verification=dv-c0L1y9gw3ROj1OWg57FR1No4" |
| fullyincontrol.com | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=AfbCchppdmDsQbZwkEeWPi9Eh6A_2sJRmsDOeeuhBZU" |
| fullyincontrol.com | TXT | Text record | "atlassian-domain-verification=L5HCPvBAhtlJIi/ptDvidJVOKeCZZADOjon8hOJPyQaDIIvmJ0ZmeMUACia8GNEX" |
| fullyincontrol.com | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com include:_spf.freshsales.io include:mail.zohopayroll.in ~all" |
| _dmarc.fullyincontrol.com | TXT | Text record | "ruf=mailto:ee310fef@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:9df772bb@inbox.ondmarc.com,mailto:3284557a@in.mailhardener.com" |
| _dmarc.fullyincontrol.com | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; pct=100; fo=1; ri=3600; rua=mailto:ee310fef@dmarc.mailgun.org,mailto:9df772bb@inbox.ondmarc.com,mailto:3284557a@in.mailhardener.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.