Website Vulnerability Scanner Report (Light)

Unlock the full capabilities of this scanner

See what the DEEP scanner can do

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

Testing areas Light scan Deep 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.youtube.com/
Target added due to a redirect from https://youtube.com

The Light Website Scanner didn't check for critical issues like SQLi, XSS, Command Injection, XXE, etc. Upgrade to run Deep scans with
40+ tests and detect more vulnerabilities.

Summary

Overall risk level: Risk ratings: Scan information:

Medium High: 0 Start time: Oct 25, 2024 / 07:55:29 UTC+03
Medium: 1 Finish time: Oct 25, 2024 / 07:57:05 UTC+03
Low: 5 Scan duration: 1 min, 36 sec

Info: 13 Tests performed: 19/19

Scan status: Finished

Findings

 Insecure cookie setting: domain too loose CONFIRMED

URL Cookie Name Evidence

https://www.youtube.com/ VISITOR_PRIVACY_METADATA Set-Cookie: .youtube.com

 Details

Risk description:
The risk is that a cookie set for example.com may be sent along with the requests sent to dev.example.com, calendar.example.com,
hostedsite.example.com. Potentially risky websites under your main domain may access those cookies and use the victim session from
the main site.

1/5
 Recommendation:
The Domain attribute should be set to the origin host to limit the scope to that particular server. For example if the application resides on
server app.mysite.com, then it should be set to Domain=app.mysite.com

Classification:
CWE : CWE-614
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration

 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 name
https://www.youtube.com/
'referrer' is not present in the response.

 Details

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.

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

Classification:
CWE : CWE-693
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration

 Unsafe security header: Content-Security-Policy CONFIRMED

URL Evidence

Response headers include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header with the following security issues:
script-src: script-src directive is missing.
base-uri: Missing base-uri allows the injection of base tags. They can be used to set the base URL for a
ll relative (script) URLs to an attacker controlled domain. We recommend setting it to 'none' or 'self'.
object-src: Missing object-src allows the injection of plugins which can execute JavaScript. We recommen
https://www.youtube.com/
d setting it to 'none'.
default-src: The default-src directive should be set as a fall-back when other restrictions have not bee
n specified.

 Details

Risk description:
For example, if the unsafe-inline directive is present in the CSP header, the execution of inline scripts and event handlers is allowed. This
can be exploited by an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code in the context of the vulnerable application.

Recommendation:
Remove the unsafe values from the directives, adopt nonces or hashes for safer inclusion of inline scripts if they are needed, and explicitly
define the sources from which scripts, styles, images or other resources can be loaded.

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 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration

2/5
 Missing security header: Strict-Transport-Security CONFIRMED

URL Evidence

Response headers do not include the HTTP Strict-Transport-Security header

https://www.youtube.com/t
Request / Response

 Details

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 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration

 Robots.txt file found CONFIRMED

URL

https://www.youtube.com/robots.txt

 Details

Risk description:
There is no particular security risk in having a robots.txt file. However, it's important to note that adding endpoints in it should not be
considered a security measure, as this file can be directly accessed and read by anyone.

Recommendation:
We recommend you to manually review the entries from robots.txt and remove the ones which lead to sensitive locations in the website
(ex. administration panels, configuration files, etc).

References:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/19/robotstxt/

Classification:
OWASP Top 10 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration

 Server software and technology found UNCONFIRMED 

Software / Version Category

Polymer JavaScript frameworks

YouTube Video players

Google Ads Advertising

HTTP/3 Miscellaneous

Google Ads Conversion Tracking Analytics

Webpack Miscellaneous

Module Federation Miscellaneous

reCAPTCHA Security

3/5
 HSTS Security

 Details

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.

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 - 2017 : A6 - Security Misconfiguration
OWASP Top 10 - 2021 : A5 - Security Misconfiguration

 Website is accessible.

 Nothing was found for vulnerabilities of server-side software.

 Nothing was found for client access policies.

 Nothing was found for absence of the security.txt file.

 Nothing was found for use of untrusted certificates.

 Nothing was found for enabled HTTP debug methods.

 Nothing was found for enabled HTTP OPTIONS method.

 Nothing was found for secure communication.

 Nothing was found for directory listing.

 Nothing was found for missing HTTP header - Content Security Policy.

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

 Nothing was found for HttpOnly flag of cookie.

 Nothing was found for Secure flag of cookie.

Scan coverage information

4/5
List of tests performed (19/19)
 Starting the scan...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - Referrer...
 Checking for domain too loose set for cookies...
 Checking for unsafe HTTP header Content Security Policy...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - Strict-Transport-Security...
 Checking for website technologies...
 Checking for vulnerabilities of server-side software...
 Checking for client access policies...
 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 enabled HTTP OPTIONS method...
 Checking for secure communication...
 Checking for directory listing...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - Content Security Policy...
 Checking for missing HTTP header - X-Content-Type-Options...
 Checking for HttpOnly flag of cookie...
 Checking for Secure flag of cookie...

Scan parameters
Target: https://www.youtube.com/
Scan type: Light
Authentication: False

Scan stats
Unique Injection Points Detected: 38
URLs spidered: 2
Total number of HTTP requests: 11
Average time until a response was
59ms
received:

5/5