Website Vulnerability Scanner Report (Light)

Unlock the full capabilities of this scanner

See what the FULL scanner can do

Perform in-depth website scanning and discover high risk vulnerabilities.

Testing areas Light scan Full scan

Website fingerprinting  

Version-based vulnerability detection  

Common configuration issues  

SQL injection  

Cross-Site Scripting  
Local/Remote File Inclusion  

Remote command execution  

Discovery of sensitive files  

 https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe

Summary

Overall risk level: Risk ratings: Scan information:

Medium High: 0 Start time: 2022-10-05 02:33:58 UTC+03
Medium: 3 Finish time: 2022-10-05 02:34:18 UTC+03

Low: 6 Scan duration: 20 sec

Info: 10 Tests performed: 19/19

Scan status: Finished

Findings

 Insecure cookie setting: missing Secure flag CONFIRMED

URL Cookie Name Evidence

Set-Cookie:
https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe JSESSIONID
JSESSIONID=39DFBB7D9BC15BC91B890A9924425A21; Path=/; HttpOnly

 Details

Risk description:
Since the Secure flag is not set on the cookie, the browser will send it over an unencrypted channel (plain HTTP) if such a request is
made. Thus, 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:

1/7
 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.

References:
https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/stable/4-Web_Application_Security_Testing/06-
Session_Management_Testing/02-Testing_for_Cookies_Attributes.html

Classification:
CWE : CWE-614
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 SSL/TLS: Server certificate is not trusted CONFIRMED

URL

https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe

 Details

Risk description:
The SSL certificate presented by the web server is not trusted by web browsers. This makes it really difficult for humans to distinguish
between the real certificate presented by the server and a fake SSL certificate. An attacker could easily mount a man-in-the-middle
attack in order to sniff the SSL communication by presenting the user a fake SSL certificate.

Recommendation:
We recommend you to configure a trusted SSL certificate for the web server. Examples of how to configure SSL for various servers for
Apache and Nginx are referenced.

References:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_ssl.html
http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/configuring_https_servers.html

Classification:
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Vulnerabilities found for server-side software UNCONFIRMED 

Risk Affected
CVSS CVE Summary Exploit
Level software

jQuery before 3.4.0, as used in Drupal, Backdrop CMS, and other products,
mishandles jQuery.extend(true, {}, ...) because of Object.prototype pollution. If jQuery
 4.3 CVE-2019-11358 N/A
an unsanitized source object contained an enumerable __proto__ property, it 3.2.0
could extend the native Object.prototype.

In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.2 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML
from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - to one of jQuery's DOM jQuery
 4.3 CVE-2020-11022 N/A
manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and others) may execute 3.2.0
untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0.

In jQuery versions greater than or equal to 1.0.3 and before 3.5.0, passing HTML
containing <option> elements from untrusted sources - even after sanitizing it - jQuery
 4.3 CVE-2020-11023 N/A
to one of jQuery's DOM manipulation methods (i.e. .html(), .append(), and 3.2.0
others) may execute untrusted code. This problem is patched in jQuery 3.5.0.

 Details

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 himself) for any of these vulnerabilities and use it to
attack the system.

Recommendation:

2/7
 We recommend you to upgrade the affected software to the latest version in order to eliminate the risk of these vulnerabilities.

Classification:
CWE : CWE-1026
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities

 Missing security header: Referrer-Policy CONFIRMED

URL Evidence

Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the <meta> tag with
https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe
name 'referrer' is not present in the response.

 Details

Risk description:
The Referrer-Policy HTTP header controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the
current web application.
For instance, if a user visits the web page "http://example.com/pricing/" and it 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.

References:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Referer_header:_privacy_and_security_concerns

Classification:
CWE : CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Missing security header: X-Content-Type-Options CONFIRMED

URL Evidence

https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header

 Details

Risk description:
The HTTP header X-Content-Type-Options is addressed to the Internet Explorer browser and prevents it from reinterpreting the
content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header). Lack of this header could lead to
attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing.

Recommendation:
We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff .

References:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options

Classification:
CWE : CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Missing security header: X-XSS-Protection CONFIRMED

3/7
 URL Evidence

https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe Response headers do not include the HTTP X-XSS-Protection security header

 Details

Risk description:
The X-XSS-Protection HTTP header instructs the browser to stop loading web pages when they detect reflected Cross-Site Scripting
(XSS) attacks. Lack of this header exposes application users to XSS attacks in case the web application contains such vulnerability.

Recommendation:
We recommend setting the X-XSS-Protection header to X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block .

References:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection

Classification:
CWE : CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Missing security header: Content-Security-Policy CONFIRMED

URL Evidence

https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe Response headers do not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header

 Details

Risk description:
The Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header activates a protection mechanism implemented in web browsers which prevents exploitation
of Cross-Site Scripting vulnerabilities (XSS). 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.

References:
https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Content_Security_Policy_Cheat_Sheet.html
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Content-Security-Policy

Classification:
CWE : CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Missing security header: Strict-Transport-Security CONFIRMED

URL Evidence

https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header

 Details

Risk description:
The HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header instructs the browser to initiate only secure (HTTPS) connections to the web server and
deny any unencrypted HTTP connection attempts. 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:

4/7
 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 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Server software and technology found UNCONFIRMED 

Software / Version Category

Java Programming languages

Google Hosted Libraries CDN

Bootstrap 4.3.1 UI frameworks

Nginx Web servers, Reverse proxies

Slick JavaScript libraries

Google Font API Font scripts

jQuery 3.2.0 JavaScript libraries

Google Tag Manager Tag managers

Google Remarketing Tag Retargeting

Google Analytics Analytics

Sectigo SSL/TLS certificate authorities

 Details

Risk description:
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.

References:
https://owasp.org/www-project-web-security-testing-guide/stable/4-Web_Application_Security_Testing/01-Information_Gathering/02-
Fingerprint_Web_Server.html

Classification:
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Security.txt file is missing CONFIRMED

URL

Missing: https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe/.well-known/security.txt

 Details

Risk description:

5/7
 We have detected that the server is missing the security.txt file. There is no particular risk in not creating a valid 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.

References:
https://securitytxt.org/

Classification:
OWASP Top 10 - 2013 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration

 Website is accessible.

 Nothing was found for client access policies.

 Nothing was found for robots.txt file.

 Nothing was found for enabled HTTP debug methods.

 Nothing was found for secure communication.

 Nothing was found for directory listing.

 Nothing was found for missing HTTP header - X-Frame-Options.

 Nothing was found for domain too loose set for cookies.

 Nothing was found for HttpOnly flag of cookie.

Scan coverage information

List of tests performed (19/19)

 Checking for website accessibility...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - Referrer...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - X-Content-Type-Options...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - X-XSS-Protection...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - Content Security Policy...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - Strict-Transport-Security...
 Checking for Secure flag of cookie...
 Checking for website technologies...
 Checking for vulnerabilities of server-side software...
 Checking for client access policies...

6/7
  Checking for robots.txt file...
 Checking for absence of the security.txt file...
 Checking for use of untrusted certificates...
 Checking for enabled HTTP debug methods...
 Checking for secure communication...
 Checking for directory listing...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - X-Frame-Options...
 Checking for domain too loose set for cookies...
 Checking for HttpOnly flag of cookie...

Scan parameters
Website URL: https://www.mi.bitel.com.pe
Scan type: Light
Authentication: False

Scan stats
Unique Injection Points
5
Detected:
URLs spidered: 43
Total number of HTTP requests: 52

7/7