<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

<!DOCTYPE SCAN SYSTEM "https://qualysguard.qg3.apps.qualys.com/scan-1.dtd">
<SCAN value="scan/1502310096.09344">

<HEADER>
  <KEY value="USERNAME">um3ss</KEY>
  <KEY value="COMPANY"><![CDATA[Illumio]]></KEY>
  <KEY value="DATE">2017-08-09T20:21:36Z</KEY>
  <KEY value="TITLE"><![CDATA[NewAuthoritativeScan]]></KEY>
  <KEY value="TARGET"><![CDATA[10.6.121.105,10.10.100.22,10.10.100.23,10.10.100.24-10.10.100.26,10.10.100.27]]></KEY>
  <KEY value="EXCLUDED_TARGET"><![CDATA[N/A]]></KEY>
  <KEY value="DURATION">00:10:27</KEY>
  <KEY value="SCAN_HOST">Colocation (Scanner 9.5.35-1, Vulnerability Signatures 2.4.105-2)</KEY>
  <KEY value="NBHOST_ALIVE">6</KEY>
  <KEY value="NBHOST_TOTAL">7</KEY>
  <KEY value="REPORT_TYPE">On-demand</KEY>
  <KEY value="OPTIONS"><![CDATA[Light TCP scan, Standard UDP port list, Authoritative Option: On, parallel ML scaling disabled for appliances, Load balancer detection OFF, ICMP Host Discovery, Overall Performance: Normal, Hosts to Scan in Parallel - External Scanners: 15, Hosts to Scan in Parallel - Scanner Appliances: 30, Total Processes to Run in Parallel: 10, HTTP Processes to Run in Parallel: 10, Packet (Burst) Delay: Medium, Intensity: Normal]]></KEY>
  <KEY value="STATUS">FINISHED</KEY>
  <ASSET_GROUPS>
    <ASSET_GROUP>
      <ASSET_GROUP_TITLE><![CDATA[All]]></ASSET_GROUP_TITLE>
    </ASSET_GROUP>
  </ASSET_GROUPS>
  <OPTION_PROFILE>
    <OPTION_PROFILE_TITLE option_profile_default="0"><![CDATA[Authoritative-Scan]]></OPTION_PROFILE_TITLE>
  </OPTION_PROFILE>
</HEADER>

<IP value="10.0.0.70" name="pos-web03-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <INFOS>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <INFO number="82040" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[ICMP Replies Received]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-16T20:14:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[ICMP (Internet Control and Error Message Protocol) is a protocol encapsulated in IP packets. ICMP's principal purpose is to provide a protocol layer that informs gateways of the inter-connectivity and accessibility of other gateways or hosts. 
<P>
We have sent the following types of packets to trigger the host to send us ICMP replies: 
<P>
Echo Request (to trigger Echo Reply)<br>
Timestamp Request (to trigger Timestamp Reply)<br>
Address Mask Request (to trigger Address Mask Reply)<br>
UDP Packet (to trigger Port Unreachable Reply)<br>
IP Packet with Protocol >= 250 (to trigger Protocol Unreachable Reply)
<P>
Listed in the "Result" section are the ICMP replies that we have received.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[ICMP Reply Type	Triggered By	Additional Information
Echo (type=0 code=0)	Echo Request	Echo Reply
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 6670	Port Unreachable
Time Stamp (type=14 code=0)	Time Stamp Request	20:24:55 GMT
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40412	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 3150	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 68	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 32186	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 12223	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=2)	IP with High Protocol	Protocol Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1047	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 5402	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1025	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40242	Port Unreachable]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82044" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-01-21T00:10:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The NetBIOS host name of this computer has been detected.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82063" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Uptime Based on TCP TimeStamp Option]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2007-05-29T18:56:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The TCP/IP stack on the host supports the TCP TimeStamp (kind 8) option. Typically the timestamp used is the host's uptime (since last reboot) in various units (e.g., one hundredth of second, one tenth of a second, etc.). Based on this, we can obtain the host's uptime. The result is given in the Result section below.
<P>
Some operating systems (e.g., MacOS, OpenBSD) use a non-zero, probably random, initial value for the timestamp. For these operating systems, the uptime obtained does not reflect the actual uptime of the host; the former is always larger than the latter.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Based on TCP timestamps obtained via port 135, the host&apos;s uptime is 0 days, 10 hours, and 15 minutes.
The TCP timestamps from the host are in units of 10 milliseconds.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82045" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Degree of Randomness of TCP Initial Sequence Numbers]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-11-19T21:53:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TCP Initial Sequence Numbers (ISNs) obtained in the SYNACK replies from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The average change between subsequent ISNs and the standard deviation from the average are displayed in the RESULT section. Also included is the degree of difficulty for exploitation of the TCP ISN generation scheme used by the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Average change between subsequent TCP initial sequence numbers is 1528676412 with a standard deviation of 1769542617. These TCP initial sequence numbers were triggered by TCP SYN probes sent to the host at an average rate of 1/(17549 microseconds). The degree of difficulty to exploit the TCP initial sequence number generation scheme is: hard.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82046" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[IP ID Values Randomness]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2006-07-27T21:45:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The values for the identification (ID) field in IP headers in IP packets from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The changes between subsequent ID values for either the network byte ordering or the host byte ordering, whichever is smaller, are displayed in the RESULT section along with the duration taken to send the probes. When incremental values are used, as is the case for TCP/IP implementation in many operating systems, these changes reflect the network load of the host at the time this test was conducted.
<P>
Please note that for reliability reasons only the network traffic from open TCP ports is analyzed.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[IP ID changes observed (network order) for port 135: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Duration: 4 milli seconds]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <INFO number="6" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[DNS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[1999-01-01T08:00:00Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The fully qualified domain name of this host, if it was obtained from a DNS server, is displayed in the RESULT section.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[IP address	Host name
10.10.100.22	No registered hostname]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45006" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Traceroute]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-05-09T18:28:51Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Traceroute describes the path in realtime from the scanner to the remote host being contacted. It reports the IP addresses of all the routers in between.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Hops	IP	Round Trip Time	Probe
1	10.7.4.1	1.88ms	ICMP
2	10.10.100.22	0.26ms	ICMP]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45261" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB Version 1 Enabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-08-04T03:31:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
          <VENDOR_REFERENCE>
            <ID><![CDATA[SMB v1]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2016/09/16/stop-using-smb1/]]></URL>
          </VENDOR_REFERENCE>
        </VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Windows host has SMBv1 protocol enabled.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SMB protocols could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information from affected systems.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Microsoft recommends users to update to latest SMB versions and stop using SMBv1.
Refer to Microsoft KB article <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-enable-and-disable-smbv1,-smbv2,-and-smbv3-in-windows-vista,-windows-server-2008,-windows-7,-windows-server-2008-r2,-windows-8,-and-windows-server-2012" TARGET="_blank">KB2696547</A> for more details.




Workaround:<BR>
Customer may consider blocking all versions of SMB at the network boundary by blocking TCP port 445 with related protocols on UDP ports 137-138 and TCP port 139, for all boundary devices.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 45261 detected on port 445 over TCP.
SMBv1 is enabled.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45039" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Names Found]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-02-14T21:01:44Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following host names were discovered for this computer using various methods such as DNS look up, NetBIOS query, and SQL server name query.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Host Name	Source
ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM	NTLM DNS
ILDAD-CA-1	NTLM NetBIOS]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Scan Time]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-18T21:41:40Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Host Scan Time is the period of time it takes the scanning engine to perform the vulnerability assessment of a single target host. The Host Scan Time for this host is reported in the Result section below. 
<P>
The Host Scan Time does not have a direct correlation to the Duration time as displayed in the Report Summary section of a scan results report. The Duration is the period of time it takes the service to perform a scan task. The Duration includes the time it takes the service to scan all hosts, which may involve parallel scanning. It also includes the time it takes for a scanner appliance to pick up the scan task and transfer the results back to the service's Secure Operating Center. Further, when a scan task is distributed across multiple scanners, the Duration includes the time it takes to perform parallel host scanning on all scanners.
<P>
For host running the Qualys Windows agent this QID reports the time taken by the agent to collect the host metadata used for the most recent assessment scan.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Scan duration: 319 seconds

Start time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:24:23 GMT

End time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:29:42 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <INFO number="70038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[File and Print Services Access Denied]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-06T22:38:58Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Access to File and Print Services did not succeed. This is provided by Common Internet File System (CIFS) service. If you provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Windows Authentication Method QID or the Windows Authentication Failed QID will not be reported if this service is not running.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require authenticated access may not be reported.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[On a Windows host, make sure that the network setting for File and Print Services is enabled and the &quot;Server&quot; service (CIFS) is running.]]></SOLUTION>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="70028" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Authentication Method]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2008-12-09T22:36:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Windows authentication was performed. The Results section in your detailed results includes a list of authentication credentials used.
<P>
The service also attempts to authenticate using common credentials. You should verify that the credentials used for successful authentication were those that were provided in the Windows authentication record. User-provided credentials failed if the discovery method shows &quot;Unable to log in using credentials provided by user, fallback to NULL session&quot;. If this is the case, verify that the credentials specified in the Windows authentication record are valid for this host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[User Name	(none)
Domain	(none)
Authentication Scheme	NULL session
Security	User-based
SMBv1 Signing	Disabled
Discovery Method	NULL session, no valid login credentials provided or found
CIFS Signing	default]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows">
      <INFO number="90194" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Registry Pipe Access Level]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-16T20:28:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Return code from remote access to the Windows registry pipe is displayed. The CIFS service accesses the Windows registry through a named pipe. Authentication to CIFS was successful, but it could not access the Registry named pipe if the error code is not 0.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require Windows registry access may not have been detected during the scan if the error code is not 0.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Error code 0x00 means the pipe access was successful. Other error codes (for eg: 0x0) denote unsuccessful access.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Access to Remote Registry Service is denied, error: 0x0]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="90788" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication Disabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2013-05-01T17:40:17Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication (NLA) is an authentication method that enhances the security of a Remote Desktop Session Host server by requiring the user to be authenticated before a session is created.
<P>
The registry key for the Network Level Authentication (NLA) is disabled.<P>

Network Level Authentication is supported on Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Enabling NLA can help protect the remote computer from malicious users and malicious software attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[See Microsoft Knowledge Base Article <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2671387" TARGET="_blank">2671387</A> to use the automated Microsoft Fix it solution to enable this feature.
<P>
As a precaution, always test in a QA or rehearsal environment before rolling out to production.<P>
<B>Note: Client computers that do not support Credential Security Support Provider (CredSSP) protocol will not be able to access servers protected with Network Level Authentication. Windows XP does not support the CredSSP protocol by default.</B>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 90788 detected on port 3389 over TCP.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services">
      <INFO number="42017" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Remote Access or Management Service Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-26T03:30:41Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A remote access or remote management service was detected. If such a service is accessible to malicious users it can be used to carry different type of attacks. Malicious users could try to brute force credentials or collect additional information on the service which could enable them in crafting further attacks. 
<P>
The Results section includes information on the remote access service that was found on the target.
<P>
Services like Telnet, Rlogin, SSH, windows remote desktop, pcAnywhere, Citrix Management Console, Remote Admin (RAdmin), VNC, OPENVPN and ISAKMP are checked.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Consequences vary by the type of attack.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Expose the remote access or remote management services only to the system administrators or intended users of the system.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Service name: Remote Desktop on TCP port 3389.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Web server" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="86002" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-24T01:09:39Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[NAME	VALUE
(0)CERTIFICATE 0	 
(0)Version	3 (0x2)
(0)Serial Number	 7e:6e:ae:8b:cd:15:55:b9:44:bf:e3:3a:86:27:e7:12 
(0)Signature Algorithm	sha256WithRSAEncryption
(0)ISSUER NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)SUBJECT NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)Valid From	Mar 27 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Valid Till	Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Public Key Algorithm	rsaEncryption
(0)RSA Public Key	(2048 bit)
(0)	 Public-Key: (2048 bit)
(0)	 Modulus:
(0)	 00:8b:01:63:c0:82:d8:f5:9e:18:20:50:bd:80:62:
(0)	 70:1c:58:98:8d:8c:2c:b3:c8:c9:8c:9b:32:64:e7:
(0)	 7c:4a:78:2a:cf:1f:05:90:85:31:41:14:e6:e9:52:
(0)	 7a:e9:d6:06:17:b3:e2:4b:6c:d5:18:5c:da:75:48:
(0)	 19:6e:0f:c8:a5:c6:57:e5:91:cb:f9:af:16:3d:c7:
(0)	 af:28:c5:69:18:48:31:1a:3d:b8:a4:ef:44:8b:d0:
(0)	 09:6d:ff:21:51:0b:e4:01:e8:88:a4:b8:b5:01:c7:
(0)	 0d:20:15:42:c0:8d:a8:02:5e:e3:90:6e:2e:29:4b:
(0)	 d6:5d:6f:48:7b:49:9d:2b:1f:7f:2c:fd:e0:7c:68:
(0)	 96:e7:3c:01:ff:98:ff:6a:6b:cc:05:a1:14:c9:1c:
(0)	 a4:6f:33:01:52:b5:ce:35:64:e2:18:c8:22:7f:4f:
(0)	 b6:a0:57:2e:85:53:79:28:8e:b3:3f:d7:32:fb:b7:
(0)	 07:2a:0f:20:51:d7:e4:68:f6:36:a3:b7:f0:36:2a:
(0)	 3e:ce:3e:14:dc:ad:b0:2f:35:d5:0a:1e:b3:32:c3:
(0)	 bf:78:cf:04:eb:f5:3c:11:45:70:39:5d:8d:6e:aa:
(0)	 30:06:63:2c:c7:b4:6b:2d:39:5e:b0:97:72:05:50:
(0)	 b4:a5:5c:ab:7a:35:97:31:55:8b:3b:22:2d:ec:57:
(0)	 39:43
(0)	 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001)
(0)X509v3 EXTENSIONS	 	
(0)X509v3 Extended Key Usage	 TLS Web Server Authentication
(0)X509v3 Key Usage	 Key Encipherment, Data Encipherment
(0)Signature	(256 octets)
(0)	22:41:73:55:a9:b3:91:bb:37:5c:9a:43:20:b6:cf:63
(0)	e0:ca:77:03:86:01:96:12:71:a7:78:d6:68:4b:28:bd
(0)	4d:9d:7f:78:68:90:e2:d9:cc:31:43:ed:0c:b2:60:eb
(0)	1b:c1:68:3e:39:e7:49:0d:b5:b3:4d:bc:ca:3e:6f:7b
(0)	e7:91:33:ce:0b:4d:f0:77:45:d3:7c:ff:b4:9d:c7:3e
(0)	c8:f1:73:01:9b:08:a3:15:f6:d1:a7:6f:e7:a2:31:d8
(0)	4d:6b:c6:d6:55:df:86:18:db:5f:95:03:0c:74:a7:f2
(0)	7a:db:c6:57:fd:32:9c:6c:81:bc:36:99:4b:d7:f4:8a
(0)	52:43:39:d0:e4:2d:0a:7c:68:ff:fd:4e:b7:6f:cd:4b
(0)	61:fa:21:1c:ee:65:f5:9d:89:f7:4c:91:3f:59:a3:bd
(0)	31:c2:e4:6c:5c:34:27:64:25:ce:72:2b:f4:18:22:af
(0)	11:ca:fc:f5:f1:58:fa:a9:0a:34:2b:45:ed:1e:f5:4d
(0)	9f:3b:da:30:88:8c:0d:00:6d:ff:e9:f1:86:d5:f4:33
(0)	ac:b5:f1:02:b0:43:82:9d:3d:6a:34:ec:cc:4d:47:c0
(0)	c1:6e:9b:20:92:1f:81:4d:7c:38:56:13:22:59:c8:27
(0)	d2:7b:89:db:a3:3d:69:02:52:b7:56:04:9a:e3:8f:3c]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="38600" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate will expire within next six months]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:24:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Certificates are used for authentication purposes in different protocols such as SSL/TLS. Each certificate has a validity period outside of which it is supposed to be considered invalid. This QID is reported to inform that a certificate will expire within next six months. The advance notice can be helpful since obtaining a certificate can take some time.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Expired certificates can cause connection disruptions or compromise the integrity and privacy of the connections being protected by the certificates.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Contact the certificate authority that signed your certificate to arrange for a renewal.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM The certificate will expire within six months: Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38609" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-05-26T22:09:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Diffie-Hellman is a popular cryptographic algorithm used by SSL/TLS. 
- For fixed primes: 1024 and below are considered unsafe.

- For variable primes: 512 is unsafe. 768 is probably mostly safe, but might not be for long. 1024 and above are considered safe.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[SSL server default to use Diffie-Hellman key exchange method with well-known 1024(bits) prime]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38597" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS invalid protocol version tolerance]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:01:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL/TLS protocols have different version that can be supported by both the client and the server. This test attempts to send invalid protocol versions to the target in order to find out what is the target's behavior. The results section contains a table that indicates what was the target's response to each of our tests.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[#table	cols=2
my version	target version
0304	rejected
0399	rejected
0400	rejected
0499	rejected]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="42350" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Support Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-21T16:40:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. TLS protocol was extended to cryptographically tierenegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over. This is referred to as TLS secure renegotiation extension. This detection determines whether the TLS secure renegotiation extension is supported by the server or not.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Status: supported.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38116" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server Information Retrieval]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-05-24T21:02:48Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[<P>The following is a list of supported SSL ciphers.<P>
Note: If a cipher is included in this list it means that it was possible to establish a SSL connection using that cipher. There are some web servers setups that allow connections to be established using a LOW grade cipher, only to provide a web page stating that the URL is accessible only through a non-LOW grade cipher. In this case even though LOW grade cipher will be listed here QID 38140 will not be reported.
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
SSLv2 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
SSLv3 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.2	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-GCM-SHA384	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
AES128-GCM-SHA256	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384	ECDH	RSA	SHA384	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256	ECDH	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38291" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Session Caching Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-09-16T18:11:03Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL session is a collection of security parameters that are negotiated by the SSL client and server for each SSL connection. SSL session caching is targeted to reduce the overhead of negotiations in recurring SSL connections. SSL sessions can be reused to resume an earlier connection or to establish multiple simultaneous connections. The client suggests an SSL session to be reused by identifying the session with a Session-ID during SSL handshake. If the server finds it appropriate to reuse the session,  then they both proceed to secure communication with already known security parameters.
<P>
This test determines if SSL session caching is enabled on the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SSL session caching is part of the SSL and TLS protocols and is not a security threat. The result of this test is for informational purposes only.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.2 session caching is enabled on the target.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
  </INFOS>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82023" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-06-15T18:32:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The port scanner enables unauthorized users with the appropriate tools to draw a map of all services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.  The test was carried out with a &quot;stealth&quot; port scanner so that the server does not log real connections.
<P>
The Results section displays the port number (Port), the default service listening on the port (IANA Assigned Ports/Services), the description of the service (Description) and the service that the scanner detected using service discovery (Service Detected).]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty figuring out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected	OS On Redirected Port
135	msrpc-epmap	epmap DCE endpoint resolution	DCERPC Endpoint Mapper 	 
445	microsoft-ds	Microsoft-DS	microsoft-ds 	 
3389	ms-wbt-server	MS WBT Server	win remote desktop over ssl]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
      <SERVICE number="82004" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open UDP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45017" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Operating System Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="70022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open DCE-RPC / MS-RPC Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
      <CAT value="General remote services" port="80" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="38291" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Security Header Not Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 8080.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227:8080
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 8080.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 8080.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 8080.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="90882" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-28T19:01:10Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Desktop Protocol is a protocol by which Terminal Service provides desktop level access to a remote user.  It can be used to remotely log in and interact with a Windows machine.<P>
Since RDP transfers sensitive information about the user and the system, it can be configured to use encryption to provide privacy and integrity for its sessions. It is possible to configure RDP to use encryption algorithms that are considered insecure, such as RC4 40bit and RC4 56 bit.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If an attacker has access to the network traffic with RDP sessions using weak encryption methods it's possible to bruteforce the encryption parameters and compromise privacy of the RDP session.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RDP needs to be configured to use strong encryption methods or use SSL as the privacy and integrity provider.<P>
To configure RDP encryption methods 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' snap-in can be launched in mmc.exe.<BR>
In 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' properties dialog box General tab for the Encryption Level 'High' should be selected.
<P>
On Windows XP the RDP configuration can be found under  Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services and User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services.  Under Encryption and Security item, double click on 'Set client connection encryption level' and enable the policy and select high for the 'Encryption level'.<P>
For more details on configuration on 2008 R2 systems see <A HREF="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770833.aspx" TARGET="_blank">Configure Server Authentication and Encryption Levels</A>.<BR>
For more detail on disabling RC4 see <A HREF="https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/2868725" TARGET="_blank">Microsoft Update for Disabling RC4</A>.<BR>
For details on supporting TLS 1.1 and TLS1.2 for Remote Desktop Services see <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080079" TARGET="_blank">Update to add RDS support for TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 in Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2</A>.<BR>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[RDP Supported Encryption methods:  RC4(40 bit),RC4(56 bit)]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="38170" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Subject Common Name Does Not Match Server FQDN]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-08-12T17:39:01Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection.
<P>
A certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName does not match the server FQDN offers only encryption without authentication.
<P>
Please note that a false positive reporting of this vulnerability is possible in the following case:
<UL>If the common name of the certificate uses a wildcard such as *.somedomainname.com and the reverse DNS resolution of the target IP is not configured. In this case there is no way for Qualys to associate the wildcard common name to the IP. Adding a reverse DNS lookup entry to the target IP will solve this problem.
</UL>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[A man-in-the-middle attacker can exploit this vulnerability in tandem with a DNS cache poisoning attack to lure the client to another server, and then steal all the encryption communication.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName matches the server FQDN.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM (ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM) and IP (10.10.100.22) don&apos;t match]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38173" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-05-23T00:02:29Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection. The authentication is done by verifying that the public key in the certificate is signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.
<P>
If a client is unable to verify the certificate, it can abort communication or prompt the user to continue the communication without authentication.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[By exploiting this vulnerability, man-in-the-middle attacks in tandem with DNS cache poisoning can occur.
<P>
Exception:<BR>
If the server communicates only with a restricted set of clients who have the server certificate or the trusted CA certificate, then the server or CA certificate may not be available publicly, and the scan will be unable to verify the signature.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM unable to get local issuer certificate]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38628" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-09T18:16:07Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TLS is capable of using a multitude of ciphers (algorithms) to create the public and private key pairs.<BR>
For example if TLSv1.0 uses either the RC4 stream cipher, or a block cipher in CBC mode.<BR>
RC4 is known to have biases and the block cipher in CBC mode is vulnerable to the POODLE attack.<P>

TLSv1.0, if configured to use the same cipher suites as SSLv3, includes a means by which a TLS implementation can downgrade the connection to SSL v3.0, thus weakening security.<P>

<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>

<B> This QID will be marked as a Fail for PCI as of May 1st, 2017 in accordance with the new standards.  For existing implementations, Merchants will be able to submit a PCI False Positive / Exception Request and provide proof of their Risk Mitigation and Migration Plan, which will result in a pass for PCI up until June 30th, 2018.
<P>
 Further details can be found at: <A HREF="https://community.qualys.com/message/34120" TARGET="_blank">NEW PCI DSS v3.2 and Migrating from SSL and Early TLS v1.1</A>
</B>
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[An attacker can exploit cryptographic flaws to conduct man-in-the-middle type attacks or to decryption communications.<P>
For example: An attacker could force a downgrade from the TLS protocol to the older SSLv3.0 protocol and exploit the POODLE vulnerability, read secure communications or maliciously modify messages.<P>
<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Disable the use of TLSv1.0 protocol in favor of a cryptographically stronger protocol such as TLSv1.2.
The following openssl commands can be used to do a manual test:
openssl s_client -connect ip:port -tls1

If the test is successful, then the target support TLSv1]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1.0 is supported]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38601" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2566,CVE-2015-2808">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS use of weak RC4 cipher]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T19:32:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2566]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2015-2808]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-2808]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[91787]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/91787]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[58796]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58796]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[73684]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/73684]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
        </BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Sockets Layer (SSL v2/v3) and Transport Layer Security (TLS ) protocols provide integrity, confidentiality and authenticity services to other protocols that lack these features.
<P>
SSL/TLS protocols use ciphers such as AES,DES, 3DES and RC4 to encrypt the content of the higher layer protocols and thus provide the confidentiality service. Normally the output of an encryption process is a sequence of random looking bytes. It was known that RC4 output has some bias in the output. Recently a group of researchers has discovered that the there is a stronger bias in RC4, which make statistical analysis of ciphertext more practical.
<P>
The described attack is to inject a malicious javascript into the victim's browser that would ensure that there are multiple connections being established with a target website and the same HTTP cookie is sent multiple times to the website in encrypted form. This provides the attacker a large set of ciphertext samples, that can be used for statistical analysis.

<P>NOTE: On 3/12/15 NVD changed the CVSS v2 access complicity from high to medium. As a result Qualys revised the CVSS score to 4.3 immediately. On 5/4/15 Qualys is also revising the severity to level 3.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If this attack is carried out and an HTTP cookie is recovered, then the attacker can use the cookie to impersonate the user whose cookie was recovered.
<P>
This attack is not very practical as it requires the attacker to have access to millions of samples of ciphertext, but there are certain assumptions that an attacker can make to improve the chances of recovering the cleartext from cihpertext. For examples HTTP cookies are either base64 encoded or hex digits. This information can help the attacker in their efforts to recover the cookie.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RC4 should not be used where possible. One reason that RC4 was still being used was BEAST and Lucky13 attacks against CBC mode ciphers in SSL and TLS. However, TLSv 1.2 or later address these issues.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
TLSv1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="90882" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-28T19:01:10Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Desktop Protocol is a protocol by which Terminal Service provides desktop level access to a remote user.  It can be used to remotely log in and interact with a Windows machine.<P>
Since RDP transfers sensitive information about the user and the system, it can be configured to use encryption to provide privacy and integrity for its sessions. It is possible to configure RDP to use encryption algorithms that are considered insecure, such as RC4 40bit and RC4 56 bit.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If an attacker has access to the network traffic with RDP sessions using weak encryption methods it's possible to bruteforce the encryption parameters and compromise privacy of the RDP session.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RDP needs to be configured to use strong encryption methods or use SSL as the privacy and integrity provider.<P>
To configure RDP encryption methods 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' snap-in can be launched in mmc.exe.<BR>
In 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' properties dialog box General tab for the Encryption Level 'High' should be selected.
<P>
On Windows XP the RDP configuration can be found under  Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services and User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services.  Under Encryption and Security item, double click on 'Set client connection encryption level' and enable the policy and select high for the 'Encryption level'.<P>
For more details on configuration on 2008 R2 systems see <A HREF="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770833.aspx" TARGET="_blank">Configure Server Authentication and Encryption Levels</A>.<BR>
For more detail on disabling RC4 see <A HREF="https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/2868725" TARGET="_blank">Microsoft Update for Disabling RC4</A>.<BR>
For details on supporting TLS 1.1 and TLS1.2 for Remote Desktop Services see <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080079" TARGET="_blank">Update to add RDS support for TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 in Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2</A>.<BR>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[RDP Supported Encryption methods:  RC4(40 bit),RC4(56 bit)]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.69" name="pos-web02-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <INFOS>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <INFO number="82040" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[ICMP Replies Received]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-16T20:14:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[ICMP (Internet Control and Error Message Protocol) is a protocol encapsulated in IP packets. ICMP's principal purpose is to provide a protocol layer that informs gateways of the inter-connectivity and accessibility of other gateways or hosts. 
<P>
We have sent the following types of packets to trigger the host to send us ICMP replies: 
<P>
Echo Request (to trigger Echo Reply)<br>
Timestamp Request (to trigger Timestamp Reply)<br>
Address Mask Request (to trigger Address Mask Reply)<br>
UDP Packet (to trigger Port Unreachable Reply)<br>
IP Packet with Protocol >= 250 (to trigger Protocol Unreachable Reply)
<P>
Listed in the "Result" section are the ICMP replies that we have received.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[ICMP Reply Type	Triggered By	Additional Information
Echo (type=0 code=0)	Echo Request	Echo Reply
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 6670	Port Unreachable
Time Stamp (type=14 code=0)	Time Stamp Request	20:24:55 GMT
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40412	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 3150	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 68	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 32186	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 12223	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=2)	IP with High Protocol	Protocol Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1047	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 5402	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1025	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40242	Port Unreachable]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82044" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-01-21T00:10:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The NetBIOS host name of this computer has been detected.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82063" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Uptime Based on TCP TimeStamp Option]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2007-05-29T18:56:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The TCP/IP stack on the host supports the TCP TimeStamp (kind 8) option. Typically the timestamp used is the host's uptime (since last reboot) in various units (e.g., one hundredth of second, one tenth of a second, etc.). Based on this, we can obtain the host's uptime. The result is given in the Result section below.
<P>
Some operating systems (e.g., MacOS, OpenBSD) use a non-zero, probably random, initial value for the timestamp. For these operating systems, the uptime obtained does not reflect the actual uptime of the host; the former is always larger than the latter.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Based on TCP timestamps obtained via port 135, the host&apos;s uptime is 0 days, 10 hours, and 15 minutes.
The TCP timestamps from the host are in units of 10 milliseconds.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82045" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Degree of Randomness of TCP Initial Sequence Numbers]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-11-19T21:53:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TCP Initial Sequence Numbers (ISNs) obtained in the SYNACK replies from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The average change between subsequent ISNs and the standard deviation from the average are displayed in the RESULT section. Also included is the degree of difficulty for exploitation of the TCP ISN generation scheme used by the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Average change between subsequent TCP initial sequence numbers is 1528676412 with a standard deviation of 1769542617. These TCP initial sequence numbers were triggered by TCP SYN probes sent to the host at an average rate of 1/(17549 microseconds). The degree of difficulty to exploit the TCP initial sequence number generation scheme is: hard.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82046" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[IP ID Values Randomness]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2006-07-27T21:45:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The values for the identification (ID) field in IP headers in IP packets from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The changes between subsequent ID values for either the network byte ordering or the host byte ordering, whichever is smaller, are displayed in the RESULT section along with the duration taken to send the probes. When incremental values are used, as is the case for TCP/IP implementation in many operating systems, these changes reflect the network load of the host at the time this test was conducted.
<P>
Please note that for reliability reasons only the network traffic from open TCP ports is analyzed.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[IP ID changes observed (network order) for port 135: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Duration: 4 milli seconds]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <INFO number="6" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[DNS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[1999-01-01T08:00:00Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The fully qualified domain name of this host, if it was obtained from a DNS server, is displayed in the RESULT section.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[IP address	Host name
10.10.100.22	No registered hostname]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45006" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Traceroute]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-05-09T18:28:51Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Traceroute describes the path in realtime from the scanner to the remote host being contacted. It reports the IP addresses of all the routers in between.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Hops	IP	Round Trip Time	Probe
1	10.7.4.1	1.88ms	ICMP
2	10.10.100.22	0.26ms	ICMP]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45261" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB Version 1 Enabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-08-04T03:31:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
          <VENDOR_REFERENCE>
            <ID><![CDATA[SMB v1]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2016/09/16/stop-using-smb1/]]></URL>
          </VENDOR_REFERENCE>
        </VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Windows host has SMBv1 protocol enabled.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SMB protocols could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information from affected systems.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Microsoft recommends users to update to latest SMB versions and stop using SMBv1.
Refer to Microsoft KB article <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-enable-and-disable-smbv1,-smbv2,-and-smbv3-in-windows-vista,-windows-server-2008,-windows-7,-windows-server-2008-r2,-windows-8,-and-windows-server-2012" TARGET="_blank">KB2696547</A> for more details.




Workaround:<BR>
Customer may consider blocking all versions of SMB at the network boundary by blocking TCP port 445 with related protocols on UDP ports 137-138 and TCP port 139, for all boundary devices.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 45261 detected on port 445 over TCP.
SMBv1 is enabled.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45039" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Names Found]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-02-14T21:01:44Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following host names were discovered for this computer using various methods such as DNS look up, NetBIOS query, and SQL server name query.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Host Name	Source
ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM	NTLM DNS
ILDAD-CA-1	NTLM NetBIOS]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Scan Time]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-18T21:41:40Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Host Scan Time is the period of time it takes the scanning engine to perform the vulnerability assessment of a single target host. The Host Scan Time for this host is reported in the Result section below. 
<P>
The Host Scan Time does not have a direct correlation to the Duration time as displayed in the Report Summary section of a scan results report. The Duration is the period of time it takes the service to perform a scan task. The Duration includes the time it takes the service to scan all hosts, which may involve parallel scanning. It also includes the time it takes for a scanner appliance to pick up the scan task and transfer the results back to the service's Secure Operating Center. Further, when a scan task is distributed across multiple scanners, the Duration includes the time it takes to perform parallel host scanning on all scanners.
<P>
For host running the Qualys Windows agent this QID reports the time taken by the agent to collect the host metadata used for the most recent assessment scan.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Scan duration: 319 seconds

Start time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:24:23 GMT

End time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:29:42 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <INFO number="70038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[File and Print Services Access Denied]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-06T22:38:58Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Access to File and Print Services did not succeed. This is provided by Common Internet File System (CIFS) service. If you provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Windows Authentication Method QID or the Windows Authentication Failed QID will not be reported if this service is not running.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require authenticated access may not be reported.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[On a Windows host, make sure that the network setting for File and Print Services is enabled and the &quot;Server&quot; service (CIFS) is running.]]></SOLUTION>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="70028" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Authentication Method]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2008-12-09T22:36:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Windows authentication was performed. The Results section in your detailed results includes a list of authentication credentials used.
<P>
The service also attempts to authenticate using common credentials. You should verify that the credentials used for successful authentication were those that were provided in the Windows authentication record. User-provided credentials failed if the discovery method shows &quot;Unable to log in using credentials provided by user, fallback to NULL session&quot;. If this is the case, verify that the credentials specified in the Windows authentication record are valid for this host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[User Name	(none)
Domain	(none)
Authentication Scheme	NULL session
Security	User-based
SMBv1 Signing	Disabled
Discovery Method	NULL session, no valid login credentials provided or found
CIFS Signing	default]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows">
      <INFO number="90194" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Registry Pipe Access Level]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-16T20:28:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Return code from remote access to the Windows registry pipe is displayed. The CIFS service accesses the Windows registry through a named pipe. Authentication to CIFS was successful, but it could not access the Registry named pipe if the error code is not 0.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require Windows registry access may not have been detected during the scan if the error code is not 0.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Error code 0x00 means the pipe access was successful. Other error codes (for eg: 0x0) denote unsuccessful access.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Access to Remote Registry Service is denied, error: 0x0]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="90788" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication Disabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2013-05-01T17:40:17Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication (NLA) is an authentication method that enhances the security of a Remote Desktop Session Host server by requiring the user to be authenticated before a session is created.
<P>
The registry key for the Network Level Authentication (NLA) is disabled.<P>

Network Level Authentication is supported on Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Enabling NLA can help protect the remote computer from malicious users and malicious software attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[See Microsoft Knowledge Base Article <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2671387" TARGET="_blank">2671387</A> to use the automated Microsoft Fix it solution to enable this feature.
<P>
As a precaution, always test in a QA or rehearsal environment before rolling out to production.<P>
<B>Note: Client computers that do not support Credential Security Support Provider (CredSSP) protocol will not be able to access servers protected with Network Level Authentication. Windows XP does not support the CredSSP protocol by default.</B>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 90788 detected on port 3389 over TCP.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services">
      <INFO number="42017" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Remote Access or Management Service Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-26T03:30:41Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A remote access or remote management service was detected. If such a service is accessible to malicious users it can be used to carry different type of attacks. Malicious users could try to brute force credentials or collect additional information on the service which could enable them in crafting further attacks. 
<P>
The Results section includes information on the remote access service that was found on the target.
<P>
Services like Telnet, Rlogin, SSH, windows remote desktop, pcAnywhere, Citrix Management Console, Remote Admin (RAdmin), VNC, OPENVPN and ISAKMP are checked.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Consequences vary by the type of attack.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Expose the remote access or remote management services only to the system administrators or intended users of the system.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Service name: Remote Desktop on TCP port 3389.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Web server" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="86002" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-24T01:09:39Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[NAME	VALUE
(0)CERTIFICATE 0	 
(0)Version	3 (0x2)
(0)Serial Number	 7e:6e:ae:8b:cd:15:55:b9:44:bf:e3:3a:86:27:e7:12 
(0)Signature Algorithm	sha256WithRSAEncryption
(0)ISSUER NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)SUBJECT NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)Valid From	Mar 27 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Valid Till	Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Public Key Algorithm	rsaEncryption
(0)RSA Public Key	(2048 bit)
(0)	 Public-Key: (2048 bit)
(0)	 Modulus:
(0)	 00:8b:01:63:c0:82:d8:f5:9e:18:20:50:bd:80:62:
(0)	 70:1c:58:98:8d:8c:2c:b3:c8:c9:8c:9b:32:64:e7:
(0)	 7c:4a:78:2a:cf:1f:05:90:85:31:41:14:e6:e9:52:
(0)	 7a:e9:d6:06:17:b3:e2:4b:6c:d5:18:5c:da:75:48:
(0)	 19:6e:0f:c8:a5:c6:57:e5:91:cb:f9:af:16:3d:c7:
(0)	 af:28:c5:69:18:48:31:1a:3d:b8:a4:ef:44:8b:d0:
(0)	 09:6d:ff:21:51:0b:e4:01:e8:88:a4:b8:b5:01:c7:
(0)	 0d:20:15:42:c0:8d:a8:02:5e:e3:90:6e:2e:29:4b:
(0)	 d6:5d:6f:48:7b:49:9d:2b:1f:7f:2c:fd:e0:7c:68:
(0)	 96:e7:3c:01:ff:98:ff:6a:6b:cc:05:a1:14:c9:1c:
(0)	 a4:6f:33:01:52:b5:ce:35:64:e2:18:c8:22:7f:4f:
(0)	 b6:a0:57:2e:85:53:79:28:8e:b3:3f:d7:32:fb:b7:
(0)	 07:2a:0f:20:51:d7:e4:68:f6:36:a3:b7:f0:36:2a:
(0)	 3e:ce:3e:14:dc:ad:b0:2f:35:d5:0a:1e:b3:32:c3:
(0)	 bf:78:cf:04:eb:f5:3c:11:45:70:39:5d:8d:6e:aa:
(0)	 30:06:63:2c:c7:b4:6b:2d:39:5e:b0:97:72:05:50:
(0)	 b4:a5:5c:ab:7a:35:97:31:55:8b:3b:22:2d:ec:57:
(0)	 39:43
(0)	 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001)
(0)X509v3 EXTENSIONS	 	
(0)X509v3 Extended Key Usage	 TLS Web Server Authentication
(0)X509v3 Key Usage	 Key Encipherment, Data Encipherment
(0)Signature	(256 octets)
(0)	22:41:73:55:a9:b3:91:bb:37:5c:9a:43:20:b6:cf:63
(0)	e0:ca:77:03:86:01:96:12:71:a7:78:d6:68:4b:28:bd
(0)	4d:9d:7f:78:68:90:e2:d9:cc:31:43:ed:0c:b2:60:eb
(0)	1b:c1:68:3e:39:e7:49:0d:b5:b3:4d:bc:ca:3e:6f:7b
(0)	e7:91:33:ce:0b:4d:f0:77:45:d3:7c:ff:b4:9d:c7:3e
(0)	c8:f1:73:01:9b:08:a3:15:f6:d1:a7:6f:e7:a2:31:d8
(0)	4d:6b:c6:d6:55:df:86:18:db:5f:95:03:0c:74:a7:f2
(0)	7a:db:c6:57:fd:32:9c:6c:81:bc:36:99:4b:d7:f4:8a
(0)	52:43:39:d0:e4:2d:0a:7c:68:ff:fd:4e:b7:6f:cd:4b
(0)	61:fa:21:1c:ee:65:f5:9d:89:f7:4c:91:3f:59:a3:bd
(0)	31:c2:e4:6c:5c:34:27:64:25:ce:72:2b:f4:18:22:af
(0)	11:ca:fc:f5:f1:58:fa:a9:0a:34:2b:45:ed:1e:f5:4d
(0)	9f:3b:da:30:88:8c:0d:00:6d:ff:e9:f1:86:d5:f4:33
(0)	ac:b5:f1:02:b0:43:82:9d:3d:6a:34:ec:cc:4d:47:c0
(0)	c1:6e:9b:20:92:1f:81:4d:7c:38:56:13:22:59:c8:27
(0)	d2:7b:89:db:a3:3d:69:02:52:b7:56:04:9a:e3:8f:3c]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="38600" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate will expire within next six months]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:24:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Certificates are used for authentication purposes in different protocols such as SSL/TLS. Each certificate has a validity period outside of which it is supposed to be considered invalid. This QID is reported to inform that a certificate will expire within next six months. The advance notice can be helpful since obtaining a certificate can take some time.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Expired certificates can cause connection disruptions or compromise the integrity and privacy of the connections being protected by the certificates.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Contact the certificate authority that signed your certificate to arrange for a renewal.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM The certificate will expire within six months: Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38609" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-05-26T22:09:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Diffie-Hellman is a popular cryptographic algorithm used by SSL/TLS. 
- For fixed primes: 1024 and below are considered unsafe.

- For variable primes: 512 is unsafe. 768 is probably mostly safe, but might not be for long. 1024 and above are considered safe.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[SSL server default to use Diffie-Hellman key exchange method with well-known 1024(bits) prime]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38597" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS invalid protocol version tolerance]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:01:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL/TLS protocols have different version that can be supported by both the client and the server. This test attempts to send invalid protocol versions to the target in order to find out what is the target's behavior. The results section contains a table that indicates what was the target's response to each of our tests.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[#table	cols=2
my version	target version
0304	rejected
0399	rejected
0400	rejected
0499	rejected]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="42350" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Support Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-21T16:40:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. TLS protocol was extended to cryptographically tierenegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over. This is referred to as TLS secure renegotiation extension. This detection determines whether the TLS secure renegotiation extension is supported by the server or not.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Status: supported.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38116" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server Information Retrieval]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-05-24T21:02:48Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[<P>The following is a list of supported SSL ciphers.<P>
Note: If a cipher is included in this list it means that it was possible to establish a SSL connection using that cipher. There are some web servers setups that allow connections to be established using a LOW grade cipher, only to provide a web page stating that the URL is accessible only through a non-LOW grade cipher. In this case even though LOW grade cipher will be listed here QID 38140 will not be reported.
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
SSLv2 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
SSLv3 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.2	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-GCM-SHA384	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
AES128-GCM-SHA256	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384	ECDH	RSA	SHA384	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256	ECDH	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38291" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Session Caching Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-09-16T18:11:03Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL session is a collection of security parameters that are negotiated by the SSL client and server for each SSL connection. SSL session caching is targeted to reduce the overhead of negotiations in recurring SSL connections. SSL sessions can be reused to resume an earlier connection or to establish multiple simultaneous connections. The client suggests an SSL session to be reused by identifying the session with a Session-ID during SSL handshake. If the server finds it appropriate to reuse the session,  then they both proceed to secure communication with already known security parameters.
<P>
This test determines if SSL session caching is enabled on the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SSL session caching is part of the SSL and TLS protocols and is not a security threat. The result of this test is for informational purposes only.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.2 session caching is enabled on the target.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
  </INFOS>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82023" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-06-15T18:32:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The port scanner enables unauthorized users with the appropriate tools to draw a map of all services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.  The test was carried out with a &quot;stealth&quot; port scanner so that the server does not log real connections.
<P>
The Results section displays the port number (Port), the default service listening on the port (IANA Assigned Ports/Services), the description of the service (Description) and the service that the scanner detected using service discovery (Service Detected).]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty figuring out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected	OS On Redirected Port
135	msrpc-epmap	epmap DCE endpoint resolution	DCERPC Endpoint Mapper 	 
445	microsoft-ds	Microsoft-DS	microsoft-ds 	 
3389	ms-wbt-server	MS WBT Server	win remote desktop over ssl]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
      <SERVICE number="82004" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open UDP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45017" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Operating System Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="70022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open DCE-RPC / MS-RPC Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="38170" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Subject Common Name Does Not Match Server FQDN]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-08-12T17:39:01Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection.
<P>
A certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName does not match the server FQDN offers only encryption without authentication.
<P>
Please note that a false positive reporting of this vulnerability is possible in the following case:
<UL>If the common name of the certificate uses a wildcard such as *.somedomainname.com and the reverse DNS resolution of the target IP is not configured. In this case there is no way for Qualys to associate the wildcard common name to the IP. Adding a reverse DNS lookup entry to the target IP will solve this problem.
</UL>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[A man-in-the-middle attacker can exploit this vulnerability in tandem with a DNS cache poisoning attack to lure the client to another server, and then steal all the encryption communication.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName matches the server FQDN.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM (ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM) and IP (10.10.100.22) don&apos;t match]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38173" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-05-23T00:02:29Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection. The authentication is done by verifying that the public key in the certificate is signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.
<P>
If a client is unable to verify the certificate, it can abort communication or prompt the user to continue the communication without authentication.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[By exploiting this vulnerability, man-in-the-middle attacks in tandem with DNS cache poisoning can occur.
<P>
Exception:<BR>
If the server communicates only with a restricted set of clients who have the server certificate or the trusted CA certificate, then the server or CA certificate may not be available publicly, and the scan will be unable to verify the signature.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM unable to get local issuer certificate]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38628" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-09T18:16:07Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TLS is capable of using a multitude of ciphers (algorithms) to create the public and private key pairs.<BR>
For example if TLSv1.0 uses either the RC4 stream cipher, or a block cipher in CBC mode.<BR>
RC4 is known to have biases and the block cipher in CBC mode is vulnerable to the POODLE attack.<P>

TLSv1.0, if configured to use the same cipher suites as SSLv3, includes a means by which a TLS implementation can downgrade the connection to SSL v3.0, thus weakening security.<P>

<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>

<B> This QID will be marked as a Fail for PCI as of May 1st, 2017 in accordance with the new standards.  For existing implementations, Merchants will be able to submit a PCI False Positive / Exception Request and provide proof of their Risk Mitigation and Migration Plan, which will result in a pass for PCI up until June 30th, 2018.
<P>
 Further details can be found at: <A HREF="https://community.qualys.com/message/34120" TARGET="_blank">NEW PCI DSS v3.2 and Migrating from SSL and Early TLS v1.1</A>
</B>
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[An attacker can exploit cryptographic flaws to conduct man-in-the-middle type attacks or to decryption communications.<P>
For example: An attacker could force a downgrade from the TLS protocol to the older SSLv3.0 protocol and exploit the POODLE vulnerability, read secure communications or maliciously modify messages.<P>
<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Disable the use of TLSv1.0 protocol in favor of a cryptographically stronger protocol such as TLSv1.2.
The following openssl commands can be used to do a manual test:
openssl s_client -connect ip:port -tls1

If the test is successful, then the target support TLSv1]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1.0 is supported]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38601" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2566,CVE-2015-2808">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS use of weak RC4 cipher]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T19:32:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2566]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2015-2808]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-2808]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[91787]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/91787]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[58796]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58796]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[73684]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/73684]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
        </BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Sockets Layer (SSL v2/v3) and Transport Layer Security (TLS ) protocols provide integrity, confidentiality and authenticity services to other protocols that lack these features.
<P>
SSL/TLS protocols use ciphers such as AES,DES, 3DES and RC4 to encrypt the content of the higher layer protocols and thus provide the confidentiality service. Normally the output of an encryption process is a sequence of random looking bytes. It was known that RC4 output has some bias in the output. Recently a group of researchers has discovered that the there is a stronger bias in RC4, which make statistical analysis of ciphertext more practical.
<P>
The described attack is to inject a malicious javascript into the victim's browser that would ensure that there are multiple connections being established with a target website and the same HTTP cookie is sent multiple times to the website in encrypted form. This provides the attacker a large set of ciphertext samples, that can be used for statistical analysis.

<P>NOTE: On 3/12/15 NVD changed the CVSS v2 access complicity from high to medium. As a result Qualys revised the CVSS score to 4.3 immediately. On 5/4/15 Qualys is also revising the severity to level 3.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If this attack is carried out and an HTTP cookie is recovered, then the attacker can use the cookie to impersonate the user whose cookie was recovered.
<P>
This attack is not very practical as it requires the attacker to have access to millions of samples of ciphertext, but there are certain assumptions that an attacker can make to improve the chances of recovering the cleartext from cihpertext. For examples HTTP cookies are either base64 encoded or hex digits. This information can help the attacker in their efforts to recover the cookie.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RC4 should not be used where possible. One reason that RC4 was still being used was BEAST and Lucky13 attacks against CBC mode ciphers in SSL and TLS. However, TLSv 1.2 or later address these issues.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
TLSv1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="90882" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-28T19:01:10Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Desktop Protocol is a protocol by which Terminal Service provides desktop level access to a remote user.  It can be used to remotely log in and interact with a Windows machine.<P>
Since RDP transfers sensitive information about the user and the system, it can be configured to use encryption to provide privacy and integrity for its sessions. It is possible to configure RDP to use encryption algorithms that are considered insecure, such as RC4 40bit and RC4 56 bit.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If an attacker has access to the network traffic with RDP sessions using weak encryption methods it's possible to bruteforce the encryption parameters and compromise privacy of the RDP session.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RDP needs to be configured to use strong encryption methods or use SSL as the privacy and integrity provider.<P>
To configure RDP encryption methods 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' snap-in can be launched in mmc.exe.<BR>
In 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' properties dialog box General tab for the Encryption Level 'High' should be selected.
<P>
On Windows XP the RDP configuration can be found under  Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services and User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services.  Under Encryption and Security item, double click on 'Set client connection encryption level' and enable the policy and select high for the 'Encryption level'.<P>
For more details on configuration on 2008 R2 systems see <A HREF="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770833.aspx" TARGET="_blank">Configure Server Authentication and Encryption Levels</A>.<BR>
For more detail on disabling RC4 see <A HREF="https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/2868725" TARGET="_blank">Microsoft Update for Disabling RC4</A>.<BR>
For details on supporting TLS 1.1 and TLS1.2 for Remote Desktop Services see <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080079" TARGET="_blank">Update to add RDS support for TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 in Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2</A>.<BR>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[RDP Supported Encryption methods:  RC4(40 bit),RC4(56 bit)]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.73" name="pos-web04-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <INFOS>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <INFO number="82040" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[ICMP Replies Received]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-16T20:14:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[ICMP (Internet Control and Error Message Protocol) is a protocol encapsulated in IP packets. ICMP's principal purpose is to provide a protocol layer that informs gateways of the inter-connectivity and accessibility of other gateways or hosts. 
<P>
We have sent the following types of packets to trigger the host to send us ICMP replies: 
<P>
Echo Request (to trigger Echo Reply)<br>
Timestamp Request (to trigger Timestamp Reply)<br>
Address Mask Request (to trigger Address Mask Reply)<br>
UDP Packet (to trigger Port Unreachable Reply)<br>
IP Packet with Protocol >= 250 (to trigger Protocol Unreachable Reply)
<P>
Listed in the "Result" section are the ICMP replies that we have received.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[ICMP Reply Type	Triggered By	Additional Information
Echo (type=0 code=0)	Echo Request	Echo Reply
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 6670	Port Unreachable
Time Stamp (type=14 code=0)	Time Stamp Request	20:24:55 GMT
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40412	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 3150	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 68	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 32186	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 12223	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=2)	IP with High Protocol	Protocol Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1047	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 5402	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1025	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40242	Port Unreachable]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82044" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-01-21T00:10:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The NetBIOS host name of this computer has been detected.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82063" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Uptime Based on TCP TimeStamp Option]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2007-05-29T18:56:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The TCP/IP stack on the host supports the TCP TimeStamp (kind 8) option. Typically the timestamp used is the host's uptime (since last reboot) in various units (e.g., one hundredth of second, one tenth of a second, etc.). Based on this, we can obtain the host's uptime. The result is given in the Result section below.
<P>
Some operating systems (e.g., MacOS, OpenBSD) use a non-zero, probably random, initial value for the timestamp. For these operating systems, the uptime obtained does not reflect the actual uptime of the host; the former is always larger than the latter.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Based on TCP timestamps obtained via port 135, the host&apos;s uptime is 0 days, 10 hours, and 15 minutes.
The TCP timestamps from the host are in units of 10 milliseconds.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82045" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Degree of Randomness of TCP Initial Sequence Numbers]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-11-19T21:53:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TCP Initial Sequence Numbers (ISNs) obtained in the SYNACK replies from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The average change between subsequent ISNs and the standard deviation from the average are displayed in the RESULT section. Also included is the degree of difficulty for exploitation of the TCP ISN generation scheme used by the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Average change between subsequent TCP initial sequence numbers is 1528676412 with a standard deviation of 1769542617. These TCP initial sequence numbers were triggered by TCP SYN probes sent to the host at an average rate of 1/(17549 microseconds). The degree of difficulty to exploit the TCP initial sequence number generation scheme is: hard.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82046" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[IP ID Values Randomness]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2006-07-27T21:45:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The values for the identification (ID) field in IP headers in IP packets from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The changes between subsequent ID values for either the network byte ordering or the host byte ordering, whichever is smaller, are displayed in the RESULT section along with the duration taken to send the probes. When incremental values are used, as is the case for TCP/IP implementation in many operating systems, these changes reflect the network load of the host at the time this test was conducted.
<P>
Please note that for reliability reasons only the network traffic from open TCP ports is analyzed.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[IP ID changes observed (network order) for port 135: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Duration: 4 milli seconds]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <INFO number="6" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[DNS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[1999-01-01T08:00:00Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The fully qualified domain name of this host, if it was obtained from a DNS server, is displayed in the RESULT section.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[IP address	Host name
10.10.100.22	No registered hostname]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45006" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Traceroute]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-05-09T18:28:51Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Traceroute describes the path in realtime from the scanner to the remote host being contacted. It reports the IP addresses of all the routers in between.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Hops	IP	Round Trip Time	Probe
1	10.7.4.1	1.88ms	ICMP
2	10.10.100.22	0.26ms	ICMP]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45261" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB Version 1 Enabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-08-04T03:31:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
          <VENDOR_REFERENCE>
            <ID><![CDATA[SMB v1]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2016/09/16/stop-using-smb1/]]></URL>
          </VENDOR_REFERENCE>
        </VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Windows host has SMBv1 protocol enabled.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SMB protocols could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information from affected systems.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Microsoft recommends users to update to latest SMB versions and stop using SMBv1.
Refer to Microsoft KB article <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-enable-and-disable-smbv1,-smbv2,-and-smbv3-in-windows-vista,-windows-server-2008,-windows-7,-windows-server-2008-r2,-windows-8,-and-windows-server-2012" TARGET="_blank">KB2696547</A> for more details.




Workaround:<BR>
Customer may consider blocking all versions of SMB at the network boundary by blocking TCP port 445 with related protocols on UDP ports 137-138 and TCP port 139, for all boundary devices.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 45261 detected on port 445 over TCP.
SMBv1 is enabled.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45039" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Names Found]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-02-14T21:01:44Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following host names were discovered for this computer using various methods such as DNS look up, NetBIOS query, and SQL server name query.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Host Name	Source
ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM	NTLM DNS
ILDAD-CA-1	NTLM NetBIOS]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Scan Time]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-18T21:41:40Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Host Scan Time is the period of time it takes the scanning engine to perform the vulnerability assessment of a single target host. The Host Scan Time for this host is reported in the Result section below. 
<P>
The Host Scan Time does not have a direct correlation to the Duration time as displayed in the Report Summary section of a scan results report. The Duration is the period of time it takes the service to perform a scan task. The Duration includes the time it takes the service to scan all hosts, which may involve parallel scanning. It also includes the time it takes for a scanner appliance to pick up the scan task and transfer the results back to the service's Secure Operating Center. Further, when a scan task is distributed across multiple scanners, the Duration includes the time it takes to perform parallel host scanning on all scanners.
<P>
For host running the Qualys Windows agent this QID reports the time taken by the agent to collect the host metadata used for the most recent assessment scan.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Scan duration: 319 seconds

Start time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:24:23 GMT

End time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:29:42 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <INFO number="70038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[File and Print Services Access Denied]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-06T22:38:58Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Access to File and Print Services did not succeed. This is provided by Common Internet File System (CIFS) service. If you provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Windows Authentication Method QID or the Windows Authentication Failed QID will not be reported if this service is not running.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require authenticated access may not be reported.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[On a Windows host, make sure that the network setting for File and Print Services is enabled and the &quot;Server&quot; service (CIFS) is running.]]></SOLUTION>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="70028" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Authentication Method]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2008-12-09T22:36:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Windows authentication was performed. The Results section in your detailed results includes a list of authentication credentials used.
<P>
The service also attempts to authenticate using common credentials. You should verify that the credentials used for successful authentication were those that were provided in the Windows authentication record. User-provided credentials failed if the discovery method shows &quot;Unable to log in using credentials provided by user, fallback to NULL session&quot;. If this is the case, verify that the credentials specified in the Windows authentication record are valid for this host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[User Name	(none)
Domain	(none)
Authentication Scheme	NULL session
Security	User-based
SMBv1 Signing	Disabled
Discovery Method	NULL session, no valid login credentials provided or found
CIFS Signing	default]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows">
      <INFO number="90194" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Registry Pipe Access Level]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-16T20:28:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Return code from remote access to the Windows registry pipe is displayed. The CIFS service accesses the Windows registry through a named pipe. Authentication to CIFS was successful, but it could not access the Registry named pipe if the error code is not 0.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require Windows registry access may not have been detected during the scan if the error code is not 0.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Error code 0x00 means the pipe access was successful. Other error codes (for eg: 0x0) denote unsuccessful access.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Access to Remote Registry Service is denied, error: 0x0]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="90788" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication Disabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2013-05-01T17:40:17Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication (NLA) is an authentication method that enhances the security of a Remote Desktop Session Host server by requiring the user to be authenticated before a session is created.
<P>
The registry key for the Network Level Authentication (NLA) is disabled.<P>

Network Level Authentication is supported on Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Enabling NLA can help protect the remote computer from malicious users and malicious software attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[See Microsoft Knowledge Base Article <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2671387" TARGET="_blank">2671387</A> to use the automated Microsoft Fix it solution to enable this feature.
<P>
As a precaution, always test in a QA or rehearsal environment before rolling out to production.<P>
<B>Note: Client computers that do not support Credential Security Support Provider (CredSSP) protocol will not be able to access servers protected with Network Level Authentication. Windows XP does not support the CredSSP protocol by default.</B>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 90788 detected on port 3389 over TCP.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services">
      <INFO number="42017" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Remote Access or Management Service Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-26T03:30:41Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A remote access or remote management service was detected. If such a service is accessible to malicious users it can be used to carry different type of attacks. Malicious users could try to brute force credentials or collect additional information on the service which could enable them in crafting further attacks. 
<P>
The Results section includes information on the remote access service that was found on the target.
<P>
Services like Telnet, Rlogin, SSH, windows remote desktop, pcAnywhere, Citrix Management Console, Remote Admin (RAdmin), VNC, OPENVPN and ISAKMP are checked.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Consequences vary by the type of attack.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Expose the remote access or remote management services only to the system administrators or intended users of the system.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Service name: Remote Desktop on TCP port 3389.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Web server" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="86002" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-24T01:09:39Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[NAME	VALUE
(0)CERTIFICATE 0	 
(0)Version	3 (0x2)
(0)Serial Number	 7e:6e:ae:8b:cd:15:55:b9:44:bf:e3:3a:86:27:e7:12 
(0)Signature Algorithm	sha256WithRSAEncryption
(0)ISSUER NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)SUBJECT NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)Valid From	Mar 27 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Valid Till	Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Public Key Algorithm	rsaEncryption
(0)RSA Public Key	(2048 bit)
(0)	 Public-Key: (2048 bit)
(0)	 Modulus:
(0)	 00:8b:01:63:c0:82:d8:f5:9e:18:20:50:bd:80:62:
(0)	 70:1c:58:98:8d:8c:2c:b3:c8:c9:8c:9b:32:64:e7:
(0)	 7c:4a:78:2a:cf:1f:05:90:85:31:41:14:e6:e9:52:
(0)	 7a:e9:d6:06:17:b3:e2:4b:6c:d5:18:5c:da:75:48:
(0)	 19:6e:0f:c8:a5:c6:57:e5:91:cb:f9:af:16:3d:c7:
(0)	 af:28:c5:69:18:48:31:1a:3d:b8:a4:ef:44:8b:d0:
(0)	 09:6d:ff:21:51:0b:e4:01:e8:88:a4:b8:b5:01:c7:
(0)	 0d:20:15:42:c0:8d:a8:02:5e:e3:90:6e:2e:29:4b:
(0)	 d6:5d:6f:48:7b:49:9d:2b:1f:7f:2c:fd:e0:7c:68:
(0)	 96:e7:3c:01:ff:98:ff:6a:6b:cc:05:a1:14:c9:1c:
(0)	 a4:6f:33:01:52:b5:ce:35:64:e2:18:c8:22:7f:4f:
(0)	 b6:a0:57:2e:85:53:79:28:8e:b3:3f:d7:32:fb:b7:
(0)	 07:2a:0f:20:51:d7:e4:68:f6:36:a3:b7:f0:36:2a:
(0)	 3e:ce:3e:14:dc:ad:b0:2f:35:d5:0a:1e:b3:32:c3:
(0)	 bf:78:cf:04:eb:f5:3c:11:45:70:39:5d:8d:6e:aa:
(0)	 30:06:63:2c:c7:b4:6b:2d:39:5e:b0:97:72:05:50:
(0)	 b4:a5:5c:ab:7a:35:97:31:55:8b:3b:22:2d:ec:57:
(0)	 39:43
(0)	 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001)
(0)X509v3 EXTENSIONS	 	
(0)X509v3 Extended Key Usage	 TLS Web Server Authentication
(0)X509v3 Key Usage	 Key Encipherment, Data Encipherment
(0)Signature	(256 octets)
(0)	22:41:73:55:a9:b3:91:bb:37:5c:9a:43:20:b6:cf:63
(0)	e0:ca:77:03:86:01:96:12:71:a7:78:d6:68:4b:28:bd
(0)	4d:9d:7f:78:68:90:e2:d9:cc:31:43:ed:0c:b2:60:eb
(0)	1b:c1:68:3e:39:e7:49:0d:b5:b3:4d:bc:ca:3e:6f:7b
(0)	e7:91:33:ce:0b:4d:f0:77:45:d3:7c:ff:b4:9d:c7:3e
(0)	c8:f1:73:01:9b:08:a3:15:f6:d1:a7:6f:e7:a2:31:d8
(0)	4d:6b:c6:d6:55:df:86:18:db:5f:95:03:0c:74:a7:f2
(0)	7a:db:c6:57:fd:32:9c:6c:81:bc:36:99:4b:d7:f4:8a
(0)	52:43:39:d0:e4:2d:0a:7c:68:ff:fd:4e:b7:6f:cd:4b
(0)	61:fa:21:1c:ee:65:f5:9d:89:f7:4c:91:3f:59:a3:bd
(0)	31:c2:e4:6c:5c:34:27:64:25:ce:72:2b:f4:18:22:af
(0)	11:ca:fc:f5:f1:58:fa:a9:0a:34:2b:45:ed:1e:f5:4d
(0)	9f:3b:da:30:88:8c:0d:00:6d:ff:e9:f1:86:d5:f4:33
(0)	ac:b5:f1:02:b0:43:82:9d:3d:6a:34:ec:cc:4d:47:c0
(0)	c1:6e:9b:20:92:1f:81:4d:7c:38:56:13:22:59:c8:27
(0)	d2:7b:89:db:a3:3d:69:02:52:b7:56:04:9a:e3:8f:3c]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="38600" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate will expire within next six months]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:24:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Certificates are used for authentication purposes in different protocols such as SSL/TLS. Each certificate has a validity period outside of which it is supposed to be considered invalid. This QID is reported to inform that a certificate will expire within next six months. The advance notice can be helpful since obtaining a certificate can take some time.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Expired certificates can cause connection disruptions or compromise the integrity and privacy of the connections being protected by the certificates.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Contact the certificate authority that signed your certificate to arrange for a renewal.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM The certificate will expire within six months: Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38609" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-05-26T22:09:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Diffie-Hellman is a popular cryptographic algorithm used by SSL/TLS. 
- For fixed primes: 1024 and below are considered unsafe.

- For variable primes: 512 is unsafe. 768 is probably mostly safe, but might not be for long. 1024 and above are considered safe.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[SSL server default to use Diffie-Hellman key exchange method with well-known 1024(bits) prime]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38597" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS invalid protocol version tolerance]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:01:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL/TLS protocols have different version that can be supported by both the client and the server. This test attempts to send invalid protocol versions to the target in order to find out what is the target's behavior. The results section contains a table that indicates what was the target's response to each of our tests.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[#table	cols=2
my version	target version
0304	rejected
0399	rejected
0400	rejected
0499	rejected]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="42350" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Support Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-21T16:40:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. TLS protocol was extended to cryptographically tierenegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over. This is referred to as TLS secure renegotiation extension. This detection determines whether the TLS secure renegotiation extension is supported by the server or not.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Status: supported.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38116" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server Information Retrieval]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-05-24T21:02:48Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[<P>The following is a list of supported SSL ciphers.<P>
Note: If a cipher is included in this list it means that it was possible to establish a SSL connection using that cipher. There are some web servers setups that allow connections to be established using a LOW grade cipher, only to provide a web page stating that the URL is accessible only through a non-LOW grade cipher. In this case even though LOW grade cipher will be listed here QID 38140 will not be reported.
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
SSLv2 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
SSLv3 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.2	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-GCM-SHA384	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
AES128-GCM-SHA256	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384	ECDH	RSA	SHA384	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256	ECDH	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38291" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Session Caching Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-09-16T18:11:03Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL session is a collection of security parameters that are negotiated by the SSL client and server for each SSL connection. SSL session caching is targeted to reduce the overhead of negotiations in recurring SSL connections. SSL sessions can be reused to resume an earlier connection or to establish multiple simultaneous connections. The client suggests an SSL session to be reused by identifying the session with a Session-ID during SSL handshake. If the server finds it appropriate to reuse the session,  then they both proceed to secure communication with already known security parameters.
<P>
This test determines if SSL session caching is enabled on the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SSL session caching is part of the SSL and TLS protocols and is not a security threat. The result of this test is for informational purposes only.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.2 session caching is enabled on the target.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
  </INFOS>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82023" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-06-15T18:32:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The port scanner enables unauthorized users with the appropriate tools to draw a map of all services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.  The test was carried out with a &quot;stealth&quot; port scanner so that the server does not log real connections.
<P>
The Results section displays the port number (Port), the default service listening on the port (IANA Assigned Ports/Services), the description of the service (Description) and the service that the scanner detected using service discovery (Service Detected).]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty figuring out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected	OS On Redirected Port
135	msrpc-epmap	epmap DCE endpoint resolution	DCERPC Endpoint Mapper 	 
445	microsoft-ds	Microsoft-DS	microsoft-ds 	 
3389	ms-wbt-server	MS WBT Server	win remote desktop over ssl]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
      <SERVICE number="82004" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open UDP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45017" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Operating System Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="70022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open DCE-RPC / MS-RPC Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="38170" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Subject Common Name Does Not Match Server FQDN]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-08-12T17:39:01Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection.
<P>
A certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName does not match the server FQDN offers only encryption without authentication.
<P>
Please note that a false positive reporting of this vulnerability is possible in the following case:
<UL>If the common name of the certificate uses a wildcard such as *.somedomainname.com and the reverse DNS resolution of the target IP is not configured. In this case there is no way for Qualys to associate the wildcard common name to the IP. Adding a reverse DNS lookup entry to the target IP will solve this problem.
</UL>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[A man-in-the-middle attacker can exploit this vulnerability in tandem with a DNS cache poisoning attack to lure the client to another server, and then steal all the encryption communication.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName matches the server FQDN.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM (ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM) and IP (10.10.100.22) don&apos;t match]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38173" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-05-23T00:02:29Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection. The authentication is done by verifying that the public key in the certificate is signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.
<P>
If a client is unable to verify the certificate, it can abort communication or prompt the user to continue the communication without authentication.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[By exploiting this vulnerability, man-in-the-middle attacks in tandem with DNS cache poisoning can occur.
<P>
Exception:<BR>
If the server communicates only with a restricted set of clients who have the server certificate or the trusted CA certificate, then the server or CA certificate may not be available publicly, and the scan will be unable to verify the signature.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM unable to get local issuer certificate]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38628" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-09T18:16:07Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TLS is capable of using a multitude of ciphers (algorithms) to create the public and private key pairs.<BR>
For example if TLSv1.0 uses either the RC4 stream cipher, or a block cipher in CBC mode.<BR>
RC4 is known to have biases and the block cipher in CBC mode is vulnerable to the POODLE attack.<P>

TLSv1.0, if configured to use the same cipher suites as SSLv3, includes a means by which a TLS implementation can downgrade the connection to SSL v3.0, thus weakening security.<P>

<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>

<B> This QID will be marked as a Fail for PCI as of May 1st, 2017 in accordance with the new standards.  For existing implementations, Merchants will be able to submit a PCI False Positive / Exception Request and provide proof of their Risk Mitigation and Migration Plan, which will result in a pass for PCI up until June 30th, 2018.
<P>
 Further details can be found at: <A HREF="https://community.qualys.com/message/34120" TARGET="_blank">NEW PCI DSS v3.2 and Migrating from SSL and Early TLS v1.1</A>
</B>
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[An attacker can exploit cryptographic flaws to conduct man-in-the-middle type attacks or to decryption communications.<P>
For example: An attacker could force a downgrade from the TLS protocol to the older SSLv3.0 protocol and exploit the POODLE vulnerability, read secure communications or maliciously modify messages.<P>
<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Disable the use of TLSv1.0 protocol in favor of a cryptographically stronger protocol such as TLSv1.2.
The following openssl commands can be used to do a manual test:
openssl s_client -connect ip:port -tls1

If the test is successful, then the target support TLSv1]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1.0 is supported]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38601" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2566,CVE-2015-2808">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS use of weak RC4 cipher]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T19:32:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2566]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2015-2808]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-2808]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[91787]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/91787]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[58796]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58796]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[73684]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/73684]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
        </BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Sockets Layer (SSL v2/v3) and Transport Layer Security (TLS ) protocols provide integrity, confidentiality and authenticity services to other protocols that lack these features.
<P>
SSL/TLS protocols use ciphers such as AES,DES, 3DES and RC4 to encrypt the content of the higher layer protocols and thus provide the confidentiality service. Normally the output of an encryption process is a sequence of random looking bytes. It was known that RC4 output has some bias in the output. Recently a group of researchers has discovered that the there is a stronger bias in RC4, which make statistical analysis of ciphertext more practical.
<P>
The described attack is to inject a malicious javascript into the victim's browser that would ensure that there are multiple connections being established with a target website and the same HTTP cookie is sent multiple times to the website in encrypted form. This provides the attacker a large set of ciphertext samples, that can be used for statistical analysis.

<P>NOTE: On 3/12/15 NVD changed the CVSS v2 access complicity from high to medium. As a result Qualys revised the CVSS score to 4.3 immediately. On 5/4/15 Qualys is also revising the severity to level 3.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If this attack is carried out and an HTTP cookie is recovered, then the attacker can use the cookie to impersonate the user whose cookie was recovered.
<P>
This attack is not very practical as it requires the attacker to have access to millions of samples of ciphertext, but there are certain assumptions that an attacker can make to improve the chances of recovering the cleartext from cihpertext. For examples HTTP cookies are either base64 encoded or hex digits. This information can help the attacker in their efforts to recover the cookie.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RC4 should not be used where possible. One reason that RC4 was still being used was BEAST and Lucky13 attacks against CBC mode ciphers in SSL and TLS. However, TLSv 1.2 or later address these issues.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
TLSv1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="90882" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-28T19:01:10Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Desktop Protocol is a protocol by which Terminal Service provides desktop level access to a remote user.  It can be used to remotely log in and interact with a Windows machine.<P>
Since RDP transfers sensitive information about the user and the system, it can be configured to use encryption to provide privacy and integrity for its sessions. It is possible to configure RDP to use encryption algorithms that are considered insecure, such as RC4 40bit and RC4 56 bit.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If an attacker has access to the network traffic with RDP sessions using weak encryption methods it's possible to bruteforce the encryption parameters and compromise privacy of the RDP session.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RDP needs to be configured to use strong encryption methods or use SSL as the privacy and integrity provider.<P>
To configure RDP encryption methods 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' snap-in can be launched in mmc.exe.<BR>
In 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' properties dialog box General tab for the Encryption Level 'High' should be selected.
<P>
On Windows XP the RDP configuration can be found under  Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services and User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services.  Under Encryption and Security item, double click on 'Set client connection encryption level' and enable the policy and select high for the 'Encryption level'.<P>
For more details on configuration on 2008 R2 systems see <A HREF="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770833.aspx" TARGET="_blank">Configure Server Authentication and Encryption Levels</A>.<BR>
For more detail on disabling RC4 see <A HREF="https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/2868725" TARGET="_blank">Microsoft Update for Disabling RC4</A>.<BR>
For details on supporting TLS 1.1 and TLS1.2 for Remote Desktop Services see <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080079" TARGET="_blank">Update to add RDS support for TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 in Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2</A>.<BR>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[RDP Supported Encryption methods:  RC4(40 bit),RC4(56 bit)]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.79" name="pos-web01-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <INFOS>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <INFO number="82040" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[ICMP Replies Received]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-16T20:14:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[ICMP (Internet Control and Error Message Protocol) is a protocol encapsulated in IP packets. ICMP's principal purpose is to provide a protocol layer that informs gateways of the inter-connectivity and accessibility of other gateways or hosts. 
<P>
We have sent the following types of packets to trigger the host to send us ICMP replies: 
<P>
Echo Request (to trigger Echo Reply)<br>
Timestamp Request (to trigger Timestamp Reply)<br>
Address Mask Request (to trigger Address Mask Reply)<br>
UDP Packet (to trigger Port Unreachable Reply)<br>
IP Packet with Protocol >= 250 (to trigger Protocol Unreachable Reply)
<P>
Listed in the "Result" section are the ICMP replies that we have received.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[ICMP Reply Type	Triggered By	Additional Information
Echo (type=0 code=0)	Echo Request	Echo Reply
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 6670	Port Unreachable
Time Stamp (type=14 code=0)	Time Stamp Request	20:24:55 GMT
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40412	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 3150	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 68	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 32186	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 12223	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=2)	IP with High Protocol	Protocol Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1047	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 5402	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 1025	Port Unreachable
Unreachable (type=3 code=3)	UDP Port 40242	Port Unreachable]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82044" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-01-21T00:10:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The NetBIOS host name of this computer has been detected.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82063" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Uptime Based on TCP TimeStamp Option]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2007-05-29T18:56:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The TCP/IP stack on the host supports the TCP TimeStamp (kind 8) option. Typically the timestamp used is the host's uptime (since last reboot) in various units (e.g., one hundredth of second, one tenth of a second, etc.). Based on this, we can obtain the host's uptime. The result is given in the Result section below.
<P>
Some operating systems (e.g., MacOS, OpenBSD) use a non-zero, probably random, initial value for the timestamp. For these operating systems, the uptime obtained does not reflect the actual uptime of the host; the former is always larger than the latter.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Based on TCP timestamps obtained via port 135, the host&apos;s uptime is 0 days, 10 hours, and 15 minutes.
The TCP timestamps from the host are in units of 10 milliseconds.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82045" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Degree of Randomness of TCP Initial Sequence Numbers]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-11-19T21:53:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TCP Initial Sequence Numbers (ISNs) obtained in the SYNACK replies from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The average change between subsequent ISNs and the standard deviation from the average are displayed in the RESULT section. Also included is the degree of difficulty for exploitation of the TCP ISN generation scheme used by the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Average change between subsequent TCP initial sequence numbers is 1528676412 with a standard deviation of 1769542617. These TCP initial sequence numbers were triggered by TCP SYN probes sent to the host at an average rate of 1/(17549 microseconds). The degree of difficulty to exploit the TCP initial sequence number generation scheme is: hard.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="82046" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[IP ID Values Randomness]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2006-07-27T21:45:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The values for the identification (ID) field in IP headers in IP packets from the host are analyzed to determine how random they are. The changes between subsequent ID values for either the network byte ordering or the host byte ordering, whichever is smaller, are displayed in the RESULT section along with the duration taken to send the probes. When incremental values are used, as is the case for TCP/IP implementation in many operating systems, these changes reflect the network load of the host at the time this test was conducted.
<P>
Please note that for reliability reasons only the network traffic from open TCP ports is analyzed.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[IP ID changes observed (network order) for port 135: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
Duration: 4 milli seconds]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <INFO number="6" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[DNS Host Name]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[1999-01-01T08:00:00Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The fully qualified domain name of this host, if it was obtained from a DNS server, is displayed in the RESULT section.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[IP address	Host name
10.10.100.22	No registered hostname]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45006" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Traceroute]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-05-09T18:28:51Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Traceroute describes the path in realtime from the scanner to the remote host being contacted. It reports the IP addresses of all the routers in between.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Hops	IP	Round Trip Time	Probe
1	10.7.4.1	1.88ms	ICMP
2	10.10.100.22	0.26ms	ICMP]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45261" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB Version 1 Enabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-08-04T03:31:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
          <VENDOR_REFERENCE>
            <ID><![CDATA[SMB v1]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2016/09/16/stop-using-smb1/]]></URL>
          </VENDOR_REFERENCE>
        </VENDOR_REFERENCE_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Windows host has SMBv1 protocol enabled.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SMB protocols could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information from affected systems.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Microsoft recommends users to update to latest SMB versions and stop using SMBv1.
Refer to Microsoft KB article <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2696547/how-to-enable-and-disable-smbv1,-smbv2,-and-smbv3-in-windows-vista,-windows-server-2008,-windows-7,-windows-server-2008-r2,-windows-8,-and-windows-server-2012" TARGET="_blank">KB2696547</A> for more details.




Workaround:<BR>
Customer may consider blocking all versions of SMB at the network boundary by blocking TCP port 445 with related protocols on UDP ports 137-138 and TCP port 139, for all boundary devices.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 45261 detected on port 445 over TCP.
SMBv1 is enabled.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45039" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Names Found]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-02-14T21:01:44Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following host names were discovered for this computer using various methods such as DNS look up, NetBIOS query, and SQL server name query.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Host Name	Source
ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM	NTLM DNS
ILDAD-CA-1	NTLM NetBIOS]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="45038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Scan Time]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-18T21:41:40Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The Host Scan Time is the period of time it takes the scanning engine to perform the vulnerability assessment of a single target host. The Host Scan Time for this host is reported in the Result section below. 
<P>
The Host Scan Time does not have a direct correlation to the Duration time as displayed in the Report Summary section of a scan results report. The Duration is the period of time it takes the service to perform a scan task. The Duration includes the time it takes the service to scan all hosts, which may involve parallel scanning. It also includes the time it takes for a scanner appliance to pick up the scan task and transfer the results back to the service's Secure Operating Center. Further, when a scan task is distributed across multiple scanners, the Duration includes the time it takes to perform parallel host scanning on all scanners.
<P>
For host running the Qualys Windows agent this QID reports the time taken by the agent to collect the host metadata used for the most recent assessment scan.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Scan duration: 319 seconds

Start time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:24:23 GMT

End time: Wed, Aug 09 2017, 20:29:42 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <INFO number="70038" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[File and Print Services Access Denied]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-06T22:38:58Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Access to File and Print Services did not succeed. This is provided by Common Internet File System (CIFS) service. If you provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Windows Authentication Method QID or the Windows Authentication Failed QID will not be reported if this service is not running.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require authenticated access may not be reported.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[On a Windows host, make sure that the network setting for File and Print Services is enabled and the &quot;Server&quot; service (CIFS) is running.]]></SOLUTION>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="70028" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Authentication Method]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2008-12-09T22:36:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Windows authentication was performed. The Results section in your detailed results includes a list of authentication credentials used.
<P>
The service also attempts to authenticate using common credentials. You should verify that the credentials used for successful authentication were those that were provided in the Windows authentication record. User-provided credentials failed if the discovery method shows &quot;Unable to log in using credentials provided by user, fallback to NULL session&quot;. If this is the case, verify that the credentials specified in the Windows authentication record are valid for this host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[User Name	(none)
Domain	(none)
Authentication Scheme	NULL session
Security	User-based
SMBv1 Signing	Disabled
Discovery Method	NULL session, no valid login credentials provided or found
CIFS Signing	default]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows">
      <INFO number="90194" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Registry Pipe Access Level]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-16T20:28:59Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Return code from remote access to the Windows registry pipe is displayed. The CIFS service accesses the Windows registry through a named pipe. Authentication to CIFS was successful, but it could not access the Registry named pipe if the error code is not 0.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Vulnerabilities that require Windows registry access may not have been detected during the scan if the error code is not 0.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Error code 0x00 means the pipe access was successful. Other error codes (for eg: 0x0) denote unsuccessful access.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Access to Remote Registry Service is denied, error: 0x0]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="90788" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication Disabled]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2013-05-01T17:40:17Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Microsoft Windows Network Level Authentication (NLA) is an authentication method that enhances the security of a Remote Desktop Session Host server by requiring the user to be authenticated before a session is created.
<P>
The registry key for the Network Level Authentication (NLA) is disabled.<P>

Network Level Authentication is supported on Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Enabling NLA can help protect the remote computer from malicious users and malicious software attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[See Microsoft Knowledge Base Article <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2671387" TARGET="_blank">2671387</A> to use the automated Microsoft Fix it solution to enable this feature.
<P>
As a precaution, always test in a QA or rehearsal environment before rolling out to production.<P>
<B>Note: Client computers that do not support Credential Security Support Provider (CredSSP) protocol will not be able to access servers protected with Network Level Authentication. Windows XP does not support the CredSSP protocol by default.</B>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[QID: 90788 detected on port 3389 over TCP.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services">
      <INFO number="42017" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Remote Access or Management Service Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-26T03:30:41Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A remote access or remote management service was detected. If such a service is accessible to malicious users it can be used to carry different type of attacks. Malicious users could try to brute force credentials or collect additional information on the service which could enable them in crafting further attacks. 
<P>
The Results section includes information on the remote access service that was found on the target.
<P>
Services like Telnet, Rlogin, SSH, windows remote desktop, pcAnywhere, Citrix Management Console, Remote Admin (RAdmin), VNC, OPENVPN and ISAKMP are checked.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Consequences vary by the type of attack.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Expose the remote access or remote management services only to the system administrators or intended users of the system.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Service name: Remote Desktop on TCP port 3389.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Web server" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="86002" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2003-01-24T01:09:39Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[NAME	VALUE
(0)CERTIFICATE 0	 
(0)Version	3 (0x2)
(0)Serial Number	 7e:6e:ae:8b:cd:15:55:b9:44:bf:e3:3a:86:27:e7:12 
(0)Signature Algorithm	sha256WithRSAEncryption
(0)ISSUER NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)SUBJECT NAME	 
commonName	ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM
(0)Valid From	Mar 27 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Valid Till	Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT
(0)Public Key Algorithm	rsaEncryption
(0)RSA Public Key	(2048 bit)
(0)	 Public-Key: (2048 bit)
(0)	 Modulus:
(0)	 00:8b:01:63:c0:82:d8:f5:9e:18:20:50:bd:80:62:
(0)	 70:1c:58:98:8d:8c:2c:b3:c8:c9:8c:9b:32:64:e7:
(0)	 7c:4a:78:2a:cf:1f:05:90:85:31:41:14:e6:e9:52:
(0)	 7a:e9:d6:06:17:b3:e2:4b:6c:d5:18:5c:da:75:48:
(0)	 19:6e:0f:c8:a5:c6:57:e5:91:cb:f9:af:16:3d:c7:
(0)	 af:28:c5:69:18:48:31:1a:3d:b8:a4:ef:44:8b:d0:
(0)	 09:6d:ff:21:51:0b:e4:01:e8:88:a4:b8:b5:01:c7:
(0)	 0d:20:15:42:c0:8d:a8:02:5e:e3:90:6e:2e:29:4b:
(0)	 d6:5d:6f:48:7b:49:9d:2b:1f:7f:2c:fd:e0:7c:68:
(0)	 96:e7:3c:01:ff:98:ff:6a:6b:cc:05:a1:14:c9:1c:
(0)	 a4:6f:33:01:52:b5:ce:35:64:e2:18:c8:22:7f:4f:
(0)	 b6:a0:57:2e:85:53:79:28:8e:b3:3f:d7:32:fb:b7:
(0)	 07:2a:0f:20:51:d7:e4:68:f6:36:a3:b7:f0:36:2a:
(0)	 3e:ce:3e:14:dc:ad:b0:2f:35:d5:0a:1e:b3:32:c3:
(0)	 bf:78:cf:04:eb:f5:3c:11:45:70:39:5d:8d:6e:aa:
(0)	 30:06:63:2c:c7:b4:6b:2d:39:5e:b0:97:72:05:50:
(0)	 b4:a5:5c:ab:7a:35:97:31:55:8b:3b:22:2d:ec:57:
(0)	 39:43
(0)	 Exponent: 65537 (0x10001)
(0)X509v3 EXTENSIONS	 	
(0)X509v3 Extended Key Usage	 TLS Web Server Authentication
(0)X509v3 Key Usage	 Key Encipherment, Data Encipherment
(0)Signature	(256 octets)
(0)	22:41:73:55:a9:b3:91:bb:37:5c:9a:43:20:b6:cf:63
(0)	e0:ca:77:03:86:01:96:12:71:a7:78:d6:68:4b:28:bd
(0)	4d:9d:7f:78:68:90:e2:d9:cc:31:43:ed:0c:b2:60:eb
(0)	1b:c1:68:3e:39:e7:49:0d:b5:b3:4d:bc:ca:3e:6f:7b
(0)	e7:91:33:ce:0b:4d:f0:77:45:d3:7c:ff:b4:9d:c7:3e
(0)	c8:f1:73:01:9b:08:a3:15:f6:d1:a7:6f:e7:a2:31:d8
(0)	4d:6b:c6:d6:55:df:86:18:db:5f:95:03:0c:74:a7:f2
(0)	7a:db:c6:57:fd:32:9c:6c:81:bc:36:99:4b:d7:f4:8a
(0)	52:43:39:d0:e4:2d:0a:7c:68:ff:fd:4e:b7:6f:cd:4b
(0)	61:fa:21:1c:ee:65:f5:9d:89:f7:4c:91:3f:59:a3:bd
(0)	31:c2:e4:6c:5c:34:27:64:25:ce:72:2b:f4:18:22:af
(0)	11:ca:fc:f5:f1:58:fa:a9:0a:34:2b:45:ed:1e:f5:4d
(0)	9f:3b:da:30:88:8c:0d:00:6d:ff:e9:f1:86:d5:f4:33
(0)	ac:b5:f1:02:b0:43:82:9d:3d:6a:34:ec:cc:4d:47:c0
(0)	c1:6e:9b:20:92:1f:81:4d:7c:38:56:13:22:59:c8:27
(0)	d2:7b:89:db:a3:3d:69:02:52:b7:56:04:9a:e3:8f:3c]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <INFO number="38600" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate will expire within next six months]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:24:19Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Certificates are used for authentication purposes in different protocols such as SSL/TLS. Each certificate has a validity period outside of which it is supposed to be considered invalid. This QID is reported to inform that a certificate will expire within next six months. The advance notice can be helpful since obtaining a certificate can take some time.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Expired certificates can cause connection disruptions or compromise the integrity and privacy of the connections being protected by the certificates.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Contact the certificate authority that signed your certificate to arrange for a renewal.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM The certificate will expire within six months: Sep 26 17:47:39 2017 GMT]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38609" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-05-26T22:09:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Diffie-Hellman is a popular cryptographic algorithm used by SSL/TLS. 
- For fixed primes: 1024 and below are considered unsafe.

- For variable primes: 512 is unsafe. 768 is probably mostly safe, but might not be for long. 1024 and above are considered safe.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[SSL server default to use Diffie-Hellman key exchange method with well-known 1024(bits) prime]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38597" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS invalid protocol version tolerance]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T20:01:36Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL/TLS protocols have different version that can be supported by both the client and the server. This test attempts to send invalid protocol versions to the target in order to find out what is the target's behavior. The results section contains a table that indicates what was the target's response to each of our tests.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[#table	cols=2
my version	target version
0304	rejected
0399	rejected
0400	rejected
0499	rejected]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="42350" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Support Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-03-21T16:40:23Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and Transport Layer Security (TLS) renegotiation are vulnerable to an attack in which the attacker forms a TLS connection with the target server, injects content of his choice, and then splices in a new TLS connection from a client. The server treats the client's initial TLS handshake as a renegotiation and thus believes that the initial data transmitted by the attacker is from the same entity as the subsequent client data. TLS protocol was extended to cryptographically tierenegotiations to the TLS connections they are being performed over. This is referred to as TLS secure renegotiation extension. This detection determines whether the TLS secure renegotiation extension is supported by the server or not.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLS Secure Renegotiation Extension Status: supported.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38116" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server Information Retrieval]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-05-24T21:02:48Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[<P>The following is a list of supported SSL ciphers.<P>
Note: If a cipher is included in this list it means that it was possible to establish a SSL connection using that cipher. There are some web servers setups that allow connections to be established using a LOW grade cipher, only to provide a web page stating that the URL is accessible only through a non-LOW grade cipher. In this case even though LOW grade cipher will be listed here QID 38140 will not be reported.
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[N/A]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
SSLv2 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
SSLv3 PROTOCOL IS DISABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.1	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 PROTOCOL IS ENABLED	 	 	 	 	 
TLSv1.2	COMPRESSION METHOD	None	 	 	 
DES-CBC3-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	3DES(168)	MEDIUM
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	DH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA256	RSA	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
AES128-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
AES256-GCM-SHA384	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
AES128-GCM-SHA256	RSA	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(128)	MEDIUM
DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384	DH	RSA	AEAD	AESGCM(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA	ECDH	RSA	SHA1	AES(128)	MEDIUM
ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384	ECDH	RSA	SHA384	AES(256)	HIGH
ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256	ECDH	RSA	SHA256	AES(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
      <INFO number="38291" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Session Caching Information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2004-09-16T18:11:03Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[SSL session is a collection of security parameters that are negotiated by the SSL client and server for each SSL connection. SSL session caching is targeted to reduce the overhead of negotiations in recurring SSL connections. SSL sessions can be reused to resume an earlier connection or to establish multiple simultaneous connections. The client suggests an SSL session to be reused by identifying the session with a Session-ID during SSL handshake. If the server finds it appropriate to reuse the session,  then they both proceed to secure communication with already known security parameters.
<P>
This test determines if SSL session caching is enabled on the host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[SSL session caching is part of the SSL and TLS protocols and is not a security threat. The result of this test is for informational purposes only.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.1 session caching is enabled on the target.TLSv1.2 session caching is enabled on the target.]]></RESULT>
      </INFO>
    </CAT>
  </INFOS>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82023" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-06-15T18:32:21Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The port scanner enables unauthorized users with the appropriate tools to draw a map of all services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.  The test was carried out with a &quot;stealth&quot; port scanner so that the server does not log real connections.
<P>
The Results section displays the port number (Port), the default service listening on the port (IANA Assigned Ports/Services), the description of the service (Description) and the service that the scanner detected using service discovery (Service Detected).]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty figuring out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected	OS On Redirected Port
135	msrpc-epmap	epmap DCE endpoint resolution	DCERPC Endpoint Mapper 	 
445	microsoft-ds	Microsoft-DS	microsoft-ds 	 
3389	ms-wbt-server	MS WBT Server	win remote desktop over ssl]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
      <SERVICE number="82004" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open UDP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45017" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Operating System Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="70022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open DCE-RPC / MS-RPC Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="38270" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Subject Common Name Does Not Match Server FQDN]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2015-08-12T17:39:01Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection.
<P>
A certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName does not match the server FQDN offers only encryption without authentication.
<P>
Please note that a false positive reporting of this vulnerability is possible in the following case:
<UL>If the common name of the certificate uses a wildcard such as *.somedomainname.com and the reverse DNS resolution of the target IP is not configured. In this case there is no way for Qualys to associate the wildcard common name to the IP. Adding a reverse DNS lookup entry to the target IP will solve this problem.
</UL>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[A man-in-the-middle attacker can exploit this vulnerability in tandem with a DNS cache poisoning attack to lure the client to another server, and then steal all the encryption communication.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate whose Subject commonName or subjectAltName matches the server FQDN.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM (ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM) and IP (10.10.100.22) don&apos;t match]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38273" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Certificate - Signature Verification Failed Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2009-05-23T00:02:29Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[An SSL Certificate associates an entity (person, organization, host, etc.) with a Public Key. In an SSL connection, the client authenticates the remote server using the server's Certificate and extracts the Public Key in the Certificate to establish the secure connection. The authentication is done by verifying that the public key in the certificate is signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.
<P>
If a client is unable to verify the certificate, it can abort communication or prompt the user to continue the communication without authentication.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[By exploiting this vulnerability, man-in-the-middle attacks in tandem with DNS cache poisoning can occur.
<P>
Exception:<BR>
If the server communicates only with a restricted set of clients who have the server certificate or the trusted CA certificate, then the server or CA certificate may not be available publicly, and the scan will be unable to verify the signature.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Please install a server certificate signed by a trusted third-party Certificate Authority.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[Certificate #0 CN=ILDAD-CA-1.ILDAD.ILLUMIO.COM unable to get local issuer certificate]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38728" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS Server supports TLSv1.0]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-06-09T18:16:07Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[TLS is capable of using a multitude of ciphers (algorithms) to create the public and private key pairs.<BR>
For example if TLSv1.0 uses either the RC4 stream cipher, or a block cipher in CBC mode.<BR>
RC4 is known to have biases and the block cipher in CBC mode is vulnerable to the POODLE attack.<P>

TLSv1.0, if configured to use the same cipher suites as SSLv3, includes a means by which a TLS implementation can downgrade the connection to SSL v3.0, thus weakening security.<P>

<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>

<B> This QID will be marked as a Fail for PCI as of May 1st, 2017 in accordance with the new standards.  For existing implementations, Merchants will be able to submit a PCI False Positive / Exception Request and provide proof of their Risk Mitigation and Migration Plan, which will result in a pass for PCI up until June 30th, 2018.
<P>
 Further details can be found at: <A HREF="https://community.qualys.com/message/34120" TARGET="_blank">NEW PCI DSS v3.2 and Migrating from SSL and Early TLS v1.1</A>
</B>
<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[An attacker can exploit cryptographic flaws to conduct man-in-the-middle type attacks or to decryption communications.<P>
For example: An attacker could force a downgrade from the TLS protocol to the older SSLv3.0 protocol and exploit the POODLE vulnerability, read secure communications or maliciously modify messages.<P>
<A HREF="https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2014/12/08/poodle-bites-tls" TARGET="_blank">A POODLE-type</A> attack could also be launched directly at TLS without negotiating a downgrade.<P>]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Disable the use of TLSv1.0 protocol in favor of a cryptographically stronger protocol such as TLSv1.2.
The following openssl commands can be used to do a manual test:
openssl s_client -connect ip:port -tls1

If the test is successful, then the target support TLSv1]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[TLSv1.0 is supported]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="38701" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2566,CVE-2015-2808">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL/TLS use of weak RC4 cipher]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-29T19:32:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2566]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2015-2808]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2015-2808]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[91787]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/91787]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[58796]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58796]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
          <BUGTRAQ_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[73684]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/73684]]></URL>
          </BUGTRAQ_ID>
        </BUGTRAQ_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Secure Sockets Layer (SSL v2/v3) and Transport Layer Security (TLS ) protocols provide integrity, confidentiality and authenticity services to other protocols that lack these features.
<P>
SSL/TLS protocols use ciphers such as AES,DES, 3DES and RC4 to encrypt the content of the higher layer protocols and thus provide the confidentiality service. Normally the output of an encryption process is a sequence of random looking bytes. It was known that RC4 output has some bias in the output. Recently a group of researchers has discovered that the there is a stronger bias in RC4, which make statistical analysis of ciphertext more practical.
<P>
The described attack is to inject a malicious javascript into the victim's browser that would ensure that there are multiple connections being established with a target website and the same HTTP cookie is sent multiple times to the website in encrypted form. This provides the attacker a large set of ciphertext samples, that can be used for statistical analysis.

<P>NOTE: On 3/12/15 NVD changed the CVSS v2 access complicity from high to medium. As a result Qualys revised the CVSS score to 4.3 immediately. On 5/4/15 Qualys is also revising the severity to level 3.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If this attack is carried out and an HTTP cookie is recovered, then the attacker can use the cookie to impersonate the user whose cookie was recovered.
<P>
This attack is not very practical as it requires the attacker to have access to millions of samples of ciphertext, but there are certain assumptions that an attacker can make to improve the chances of recovering the cleartext from cihpertext. For examples HTTP cookies are either base64 encoded or hex digits. This information can help the attacker in their efforts to recover the cookie.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RC4 should not be used where possible. One reason that RC4 was still being used was BEAST and Lucky13 attacks against CBC mode ciphers in SSL and TLS. However, TLSv 1.2 or later address these issues.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[CIPHER	KEY-EXCHANGE	AUTHENTICATION	MAC	ENCRYPTION(KEY-STRENGTH)	GRADE
TLSv1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.1 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
TLSv1.2 WITH RC4 CIPHERs IS SUPPORTED	 	 	 	 	 
RC4-SHA	RSA	RSA	SHA1	RC4(128)	MEDIUM
RC4-MD5	RSA	RSA	MD5	RC4(128)	MEDIUM]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Windows" port="3389" protocol="tcp" misc="over ssl">
      <VULN number="90882" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2016-01-28T19:01:10Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Remote Desktop Protocol is a protocol by which Terminal Service provides desktop level access to a remote user.  It can be used to remotely log in and interact with a Windows machine.<P>
Since RDP transfers sensitive information about the user and the system, it can be configured to use encryption to provide privacy and integrity for its sessions. It is possible to configure RDP to use encryption algorithms that are considered insecure, such as RC4 40bit and RC4 56 bit.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[If an attacker has access to the network traffic with RDP sessions using weak encryption methods it's possible to bruteforce the encryption parameters and compromise privacy of the RDP session.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[RDP needs to be configured to use strong encryption methods or use SSL as the privacy and integrity provider.<P>
To configure RDP encryption methods 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' snap-in can be launched in mmc.exe.<BR>
In 'Terminal Services Configuration' or 'Remote Desktop Session Host Configuration' properties dialog box General tab for the Encryption Level 'High' should be selected.
<P>
On Windows XP the RDP configuration can be found under  Computer Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services and User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Terminal Services.  Under Encryption and Security item, double click on 'Set client connection encryption level' and enable the policy and select high for the 'Encryption level'.<P>
For more details on configuration on 2008 R2 systems see <A HREF="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770833.aspx" TARGET="_blank">Configure Server Authentication and Encryption Levels</A>.<BR>
For more detail on disabling RC4 see <A HREF="https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/2868725" TARGET="_blank">Microsoft Update for Disabling RC4</A>.<BR>
For details on supporting TLS 1.1 and TLS1.2 for Remote Desktop Services see <A HREF="https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3080079" TARGET="_blank">Update to add RDS support for TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2 in Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2</A>.<BR>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[RDP Supported Encryption methods:  RC4(40 bit),RC4(56 bit)]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>	
<IP value="10.0.0.75" name="pos-proc01-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="Jolly Rancher" port="7676" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="75178" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Jolly Rancher simple attach and exfiltration]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Odoo" port="8070" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="92427" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="92426" severity="3" cveid="CVE-2013-2579">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Methods Returned by OPTIONS Request]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2579]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="Tomcat" port="1080" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="70122" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="8081" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12033" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2564,CVE-2015-2818">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Security Header Not Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.72" name="pos-proc02-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="Odoo" port="8070" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="92427" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="92426" severity="3" cveid="CVE-2013-2579">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Methods Returned by OPTIONS Request]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2579]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="Tomcat" port="1080" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="70122" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="8081" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12033" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2564,CVE-2015-2818">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Security Header Not Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.66" name="pos-proc03-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="Odoo" port="8070" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="92427" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="92426" severity="3" cveid="CVE-2013-2579">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Methods Returned by OPTIONS Request]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2579]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="Tomcat" port="1080" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="70122" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="8081" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12033" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2564,CVE-2015-2818">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Security Header Not Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.77" name="pos-proc04-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="Odoo" port="8070" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="92427" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="92426" severity="3" cveid="CVE-2013-2579">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Methods Returned by OPTIONS Request]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2579]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="Tomcat" port="1080" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="70122" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="8081" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12033" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2564,CVE-2015-2818">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Security Header Not Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.74" name="pos-proc05-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="Odoo" port="8070" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="92427" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="92426" severity="3" cveid="CVE-2013-2579">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Methods Returned by OPTIONS Request]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2579]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="Tomcat" port="1080" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="70122" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="8081" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12033" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2564,CVE-2015-2818">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Security Header Not Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.68" name="pos-proc6-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="Odoo" port="8070" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="92427" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Open TCP Services List]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
      <VULN number="92426" severity="3" cveid="CVE-2013-2579">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Methods Returned by OPTIONS Request]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2013-2579]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="Tomcat" port="1080" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="70122" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Windows Remote Desktop Protocol Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="General remote services" port="8081" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12033" severity="1" cveid="CVE-2013-2564,CVE-2015-2818">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[HTTP Security Header Not Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.78" name="pos-db01-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="MySQL" port="3306" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="93427" severity="4">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[MySQL Overflow Corruption]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="PostGreSQL" port="5432" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12233" severity="4" cveid="CVE-2017-4562,CVE-2018-1118">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[PostgreSQL Database Default Account Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
         <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2017-4562]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2018-1118]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.71" name="pos-db01-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="MySQL" port="3306" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="93427" severity="4">
        <TITLE><![MySQL Overflow Corruption]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="PostGreSQL" port="5432" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12233" severity="4" cveid="CVE-2017-4562,CVE-2018-1118">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[PostgreSQL Database Default Account Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
         <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2017-4562]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2018-1118]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.76" name="pos-db01-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="MySQL" port="3306" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="93427" severity="4">
        <TITLE><![MySQL Overflow Corruption]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="PostGreSQL" port="5432" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12233" severity="4" cveid="CVE-2017-4562,CVE-2018-1118">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[PostgreSQL Database Default Account Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
         <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2017-4562]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2018-1118]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.0.67" name="pos-db01-pci">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="MySQL" port="3306" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="93427" severity="4">
        <TITLE><![MySQL Overflow Corruption]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB" port="445" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82156" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SMB V1 Detected]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82163" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Limited Names]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="PostGreSQL" port="5432" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="12233" severity="4" cveid="CVE-2017-4562,CVE-2018-1118">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[PostgreSQL Database Default Account Vulnerability]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
         <CVE_ID_LIST>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2017-4562]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
          <CVE_ID>
            <ID><![CDATA[CVE-2018-1118]]></ID>
            <URL><![CDATA[http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2013-2566]]></URL>
          </CVE_ID>
        </CVE_ID_LIST>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
<IP value="10.0.1.27" name="ord-proc01-prd">
  <OS><![CDATA[Windows 2012 R2/8.1]]></OS>
  <NETBIOS_HOSTNAME><![CDATA[ILDAD-CA-1]]></NETBIOS_HOSTNAME>
  <SERVICES>
    <CAT value="TCP/IP">
      <SERVICE number="82005" severity="1">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[SSL Server default Diffie-Hellman prime information]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-07-11T22:36:34Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[A port scanner was used to draw a map of all the UDP services on this host that can be accessed from the Internet.
<P>
Note that if the host is behind a firewall, there is a small chance that the list includes a few ports that are filtered or blocked by the firewall but are not actually open on the target host. This (false positive on UDP open ports) may happen when the firewall is configured to reject UDP packets for most (but not all) ports with an ICMP Port Unreachable packet. This may also happen when the firewall is configured to allow UDP packets for most (but not all) ports through and filter/block/drop UDP packets for only a few ports. Both cases are uncommon.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Unauthorized users can exploit this information to test vulnerabilities in each of the open services.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list.  If you have difficulty working out which service is provided by which process or program, contact your provider's support team.  For more information about commercial and open-source Intrusion Detection Systems available for detecting port scanners of this kind, visit the <A HREF="http://www.cert.org" TARGET="_blank">CERT Web site</A>.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Port	IANA Assigned Ports/Services	Description	Service Detected
123	ntp	Network Time Protocol	unknown
137	netbios-ns	NETBIOS Name Service	unknown
138	netbios-dgm	NETBIOS Datagram Service	unknown
500	isakmp	isakmp	unknown]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="Information gathering">
      <SERVICE number="45117" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Anonymous Access to FTP with a Blank Password Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-05-03T03:30:30Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[Several different techniques can be used to identify the operating system (OS) running on a host. A short description of these techniques is provided below. The specific technique used to identify the OS on this host is included in the RESULTS section of your report.
<P>
1) <B>TCP/IP Fingerprint</B>: The operating system of a host can be identified from a remote system using TCP/IP fingerprinting. All underlying operating system TCP/IP stacks have subtle differences that can be seen in their responses to specially-crafted TCP packets. According to the results of this &quot;fingerprinting&quot; technique, the OS version is among those listed below. 
<P>
Note that if one or more of these subtle differences are modified by a firewall or a packet filtering device between the scanner and the host, the fingerprinting technique may fail. Consequently, the version of the OS may not be detected correctly. If the host is behind a proxy-type firewall, the version of the operating system detected may be that of the firewall instead of the host being scanned.
<P>
2) <B>NetBIOS</B>: Short for Network Basic Input Output System, an application programming interface (API) that augments the DOS BIOS by adding special functions for local-area networks (LANs). Almost all LANs for PCs are based on the NetBIOS. Some LAN manufacturers have even extended it, adding additional network capabilities. NetBIOS relies on a message format called Server Message Block (SMB). 
<P>
3) <B>PHP Info</B>: PHP is a hypertext pre-processor, an open-source, server-side, HTML-embedded scripting language used to create dynamic Web pages. Under some configurations it is possible to call PHP functions like phpinfo() and obtain operating system information.
<P>
4) <B>SNMP</B>: The Simple Network Monitoring Protocol is used to monitor hosts, routers, and the networks to which they attach. The SNMP service maintains Management Information Base (MIB), a set of variables (database) that can be fetched by Managers. These include &quot;MIB_II.system.sysDescr&quot; for the operating system.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Not  applicable.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Operating System	Technique	ID
Windows 2012 R2/8.1	NTLMSSP	 
Windows Vista / Windows 2008 / Windows 7 / Windows 2012 / Windows 8 / Windows 10	TCP/IP Fingerprint	U3414:135
Windows 2003/XP/Vista/2008/2012	MS-RPC Fingerprint]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="SMB / NETBIOS">
      <SERVICE number="72022" severity="2">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Host Name Not Available]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2005-06-07T02:31:26Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>0</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[The following DCE-RPC / MS-RPC services are active on the remote host.]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[N/A]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[Shut down any unknown or unused service on the list. In Windows, this is done in the &quot;Services&quot; Control Panel. In other environments, this usually requires editing a configuration file or start-up script.

If you have provided Windows Authentication credentials, the Microsoft Registry service supporting the named pipe &quot;\PIPE\winreg&quot; must be present to allow CIFS to access the Registry.]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT format="table"><![CDATA[Description	Version	TCP Ports	UDP Ports	HTTP Ports	NetBIOS/CIFS Pipes
DCE Endpoint Mapper	3.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM OXID Resolver	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM Remote Activation	0.0	135	 	 	 
DCOM System Activator	0.0	135	 	 	 
Microsoft Certificate Server	0.0	1105	 	 	\pipe\cert
Microsoft Scheduler Control Service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Microsoft Security Account Manager	1.0	1111, 1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
Microsoft Service Control Service	2.0	1058	 	 	 
Microsoft Spool Subsystem	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Microsoft Task Scheduler	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
WinHttp Auto-Proxy Service	5.1	 	 	 	\PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
(Unknown Service)	1.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	0.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	2.0	135	 	 	 
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1025	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\InitShutdown
(Unknown Service)	1.0	 	 	 	\pipe\LSM_API_service
DHCPv6 Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
DHCP Client LRPC Endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Wcm Service	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
NRP server endpoint	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Event log TCPIP	1.0	1026	 	 	\pipe\eventlog
Impl friendly name	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\srvsvc, \PIPE\atsvc
IdSegSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
XactSrv service	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Adh APIs	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager client server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
Proxy Manager provider server endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IP Transition Configuration endpoint	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
IKE/Authip API	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1027	 	 	\PIPE\atsvc
DfsDs service	1.0	 	 	 	\PIPE\wkssvc
KeyIso	2.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
RemoteAccessCheck	0.0	1028	 	 	\pipe\lsass
(Unknown Service)	1.0	1040	 	 	 
Remote Fw APIs	1.0	1062]]></RESULT>
      </SERVICE>
    </CAT>
  </SERVICES>
  <VULNS>
    <CAT value="CrazyIvan" port="7676" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="93422" severity="5">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Always Turns Left]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="FTP" port="21" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82155" severity="4">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Unsecure Data ports FTP]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
    <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="125" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="82144" severity="4">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Mail Bad Key value check]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT> 
    <CAT value="Tomcat" port="137" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="25622" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS exposure attackl Weak Encryption Method Allowed]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
        <CAT value="NetBIOS" port="138" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="50142" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[NetBIOS Little Indian vs Big Indian]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
        <CAT value="Telnet" port="23" protocol="tcp">
      <VULN number="75122" severity="3">
        <TITLE><![CDATA[Telnet Memory clean up issus]]></TITLE>
        <LAST_UPDATE><![CDATA[2017-07-20T22:32:06Z]]></LAST_UPDATE>
        <PCI_FLAG>1</PCI_FLAG>
        <DIAGNOSIS><![CDATA[This QID reports the absence of the following <A HREF="https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project#tab=Headers" TARGET="_blank">HTTP headers</A> according to <A HREF="https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/693.html" TARGET="_blank">CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure</A>:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: This HTTP response header improves the protection of web applications against clickjacking attacks. Clickjacking, also known as a &quot;UI redress attack&quot;, allows an attacker to use multiple transparent or opaque layers to trick a targeted user into clicking on a button or link on another page when they were intending to click on the the top level page. <BR>
X-XSS-Protection: This HTTP header enables the browser built-in Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) filter to prevent cross-site scripting attacks. X-XSS-Protection: 0; disables this functionality.<BR>
X-Content-Type-Options: This HTTP header prevents attacks based on MIME-type mismatch. The only possible value is nosniff. If your server returns X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff in the response, the browser will refuse to load the styles and scripts in case they have an incorrect MIME-type. <BR>
Content-Security-Policy: This HTTP header helps to detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross Site Scripting (XSS), packet sniffing attacks and data injection attacks.<P>
QID Detection Logic:<BR>
This unauthenticated QID looks for the presence of the following HTTP responses:<BR>
Valid directives for X-Frame-Options are:<BR>
X-Frame-Options: DENY - The page cannot be displayed in a frame, regardless of the site attempting to do so.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the same origin as the page itself.<BR>
X-Frame-Options: ALLOW-FROM RESOURCE-URL - The page can only be displayed in a frame on the specified origin.<P>
Valid directives for X-XSS-Protections are:<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1 - Enables XSS filtering (usually default in browsers). If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page (remove the unsafe parts).<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block - Enables XSS filtering. Rather than sanitizing the page, the browser will prevent rendering of the page if an attack is detected.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection: 1; report=URI  - Enables XSS filtering. If a cross-site scripting attack is detected, the browser will sanitize the page and report the violation. This uses the functionality of the CSP report-uri directive to send a report.<BR>
X-XSS-Protection HTTP: 0 disables this directive and hence is also treated as not detected.<P>
A valid directive for X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
A valid directive for Content-Security-Policy, except for Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only.<P>]]></DIAGNOSIS>
        <CONSEQUENCE><![CDATA[Depending on the vulnerability being exploited, an unauthenticated remote attacker could conduct cross-site scripting, clickjacking or MIME-type sniffing attacks.]]></CONSEQUENCE>
        <SOLUTION><![CDATA[CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure mentions the following - The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product. A &quot;missing&quot; protection mechanism occurs when the application does not define any mechanism against a certain class of attack. An &quot;insufficient&quot; protection mechanism might provide some defenses - for example, against the most common attacks - but it does not protect against everything that is intended. Finally, an &quot;ignored&quot; mechanism occurs when a mechanism is available and in active use within the product, but the developer has not applied it in some code path.<P>
Customers are advised to set proper <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Frame-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Frame-Options</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-XSS-Protection" TARGET="_blank">X-XSS-Protection</A>, <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP" TARGET="_blank">Content Security Policy</A> and <A HREF="https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/X-Content-Type-Options" TARGET="_blank">X-Content-Type-Options</A> HTTP response headers.<P>
Depending on their server software, customers can set directives in their site configuration or Web.config files. Few examples are:<P>
X-Frame-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always append X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN<BR>
nginx: add_header X-Frame-Options SAMEORIGIN;<BR>
HAProxy: rspadd X-Frame-Options:\ SAMEORIGIN<BR>
IIS: &lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;X-Frame-Options&quot; VALUE=&quot;SAMEORIGIN&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;<P>
X-XSS-Protection:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-XSS-Protection &quot;1; mode=block&quot; <BR>
PHP: header(&quot;X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block&quot;);<P>
X-Content-Type-Options:<BR>
Apache: Header always set X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff<P>
Content-Security-Policy: (Please note that these values may differ from website to website. The values below are for informational purposes only. The scanner simply looks for the presence of the security header.)<BR>
Apache: Header set Content-Security-Policy &quot;script-src 'self'; object-src 'self'&quot;<BR>
IIS: &lt;SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;&lt;HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;ADD NAME=&quot;Content-Security-Policy&quot; VALUE=&quot;default-src 'self';&quot;&gt;&lt;/ADD&gt;&lt;/CUSTOMHEADERS&gt;&lt;/HTTPPROTOCOL&gt;&lt;/SYSTEM.WEBSERVER&gt;<BR>
nginx: add_header Content-Security-Policy &quot;default-src 'self'; script-src 'self';<P>]]></SOLUTION>
        <RESULT><![CDATA[X-Frame-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
GET / HTTP/1.1
Host: 10.7.0.227
Connection: Keep-Alive



X-XSS-Protection HTTP Header missing on port 80.
X-Content-Type-Options HTTP Header missing on port 80.
Content-Security-Policy HTTP Header missing on port 80.]]></RESULT>
      </VULN>
    </CAT>
  </VULNS>
</IP>
</SCAN>
<!-- CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. Qualys provides the QualysGuard Service "As Is," without any warranty of any kind. Qualys makes no warranty that the information contained in this report is complete or error-free. Copyright 2017, Qualys, Inc. //--> 
