// See cached web security scan results for microsoft.com.
// Run OWASP ZAP, NMAP, WhatWeb, TLS scans on microsoft.com
// Discover sites running Adobe Flash on Apache with a faulty SSL configuration
// Search for sites with open ports 20 OR 21 AND 8008
// Look for Canadian sites built with Bootstrap in the .com domain with absent Anti-CSRF tokens
// Look for sites with (unsafe inline scripts OR styles) AND Loosely Scoped Cookies. (Accepts ZAP alert IDs)
Scanned dusing the Idyllum Labs website security scanner at www.idyllum.com
No Anti-CSRF tokens were found in a HTML submission form.
A cross-site request forgery is an attack that involves forcing a victim to send an HTTP request to a target destination without their knowledge or intent in order to perform an action as the victim. The underlying cause is application functionality using predictable URL/form actions in a repeatable way. The nature of the attack is that CSRF exploits the trust that a web site has for a user. By contrast, cross-site scripting (XSS) exploits the trust that a user has for a web site. Like XSS, CSRF attacks are not necessarily cross-site, but they can be. Cross-site request forgery is also known as CSRF, XSRF, one-click attack, session riding, confused deputy, and sea surf.
CSRF attacks are effective in a number of situations, including:
* The victim has an active session on the target site.
* The victim is authenticated via HTTP auth on the target site.
* The victim is on the same local network as the target site.
CSRF has primarily been used to perform an action against a target site using the victim's privileges, but recent techniques have been discovered to disclose information by gaining access to the response. The risk of information disclosure is dramatically increased when the target site is vulnerable to XSS, because XSS can be used as a platform for CSRF, allowing the attack to operate within the bounds of the same-origin policy.
Phase: Architecture and Design
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard.
Ensure that your application is free of cross-site scripting issues, because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Phase: Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.
Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
Note that this can be bypassed using XSS.
Use the ESAPI Session Management control.
This control includes a component for CSRF.
Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
The response does not include either Content-Security-Policy with 'frame-ancestors' directive or X-Frame-Options to protect against 'ClickJacking' attacks.
Modern Web browsers support the Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options HTTP headers. Ensure one of them is set on all web pages returned by your site/app.
If you expect the page to be framed only by pages on your server (e.g. it's part of a FRAMESET) then you'll want to use SAMEORIGIN, otherwise if you never expect the page to be framed, you should use DENY. Alternatively consider implementing Content Security Policy's "frame-ancestors" directive.
The identified library jquery, version 1.3.2 is vulnerable.
Please upgrade to the latest version of jquery.
Ensure that the HttpOnly flag is set for all cookies.
A cookie has been set with an invalid SameSite attribute value, which means that the cookie can be sent as a result of a 'cross-site' request. The SameSite attribute is an effective counter measure to cross-site request forgery, cross-site script inclusion, and timing attacks.
Ensure that the SameSite attribute is set to either 'lax' or ideally 'strict' for all cookies.
A timestamp was disclosed by the application/web server - Unix
Manually confirm that the timestamp data is not sensitive, and that the data cannot be aggregated to disclose exploitable patterns.
Server leaks information via "X-AspNet-Version"/"X-AspNetMvc-Version" HTTP response header field(s).
Configure the server so it will not return those headers.
The Anti-MIME-Sniffing header X-Content-Type-Options was not set to 'nosniff'. This allows older versions of Internet Explorer and Chrome to perform MIME-sniffing on the response body, potentially causing the response body to be interpreted and displayed as a content type other than the declared content type. Current (early 2014) and legacy versions of Firefox will use the declared content type (if one is set), rather than performing MIME-sniffing.
Ensure that the application/web server sets the Content-Type header appropriately, and that it sets the X-Content-Type-Options header to 'nosniff' for all web pages.
If possible, ensure that the end user uses a standards-compliant and modern web browser that does not perform MIME-sniffing at all, or that can be directed by the web application/web server to not perform MIME-sniffing.
The request appeared to contain sensitive information leaked in the URL. This can violate PCI and most organizational compliance policies. You can configure the list of strings for this check to add or remove values specific to your environment.
Do not pass sensitive information in URIs.
The response appears to contain suspicious comments which may help an attacker. Note: Matches made within script blocks or files are against the entire content not only comments.
Remove all comments that return information that may help an attacker and fix any underlying problems they refer to.
Cookies can be scoped by domain or path. This check is only concerned with domain scope.The domain scope applied to a cookie determines which domains can access it. For example, a cookie can be scoped strictly to a subdomain e.g. www.nottrusted.com, or loosely scoped to a parent domain e.g. nottrusted.com. In the latter case, any subdomain of nottrusted.com can access the cookie. Loosely scoped cookies are common in mega-applications like google.com and live.com. Cookies set from a subdomain like app.foo.bar are transmitted only to that domain by the browser. However, cookies scoped to a parent-level domain may be transmitted to the parent, or any subdomain of the parent.
Always scope cookies to a FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain Name).
|Sorry, no records found|
|TXT||elixir.ee||3600||v=spf1 a mx include:_spf.zone.eu include:_spf.google.com ~all|
This report was generated with the Idyllum Labs Website security tool.
Get your report www.idyllum.com
Is the code hosted at gnsbing.com vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks? Are the used systems up to date and respecting the security standards of 2023?
We at Idyllum Labs wanted to find out! That is why we built this automated website security scanner and generated this report.
This is an automated and unbiased website vulnerability scan for the domain gnsbing.com and has nothing to do with human subjectivity, thoughts, opinions, or relationships.
Our cloud-based infrastructure crawls the internet using a mixture of OWASP ZAP, Nmap, Whatweb, and other great software to detect website security issues. We display this data for educational purposes - to give security guidelines for anyone interested in building a safer web environment.
If you have comments, don't agree with the results, or want to submit a site for manual examination, don't hesitate to contact us.
Run a free OWASP ZAP scan for any website at Idyllum.com!