10
/10

Security Report

https://www.go2kennewick.com
CRITICAL RISK
Scan DateOctober 23, 2026
Scan Time10:27 AM
Open Ports0
Public IP104.16.182.134
AI ModelRule-based (AI unavailable)
18
High Risk
5
Medium Risk
47
Low / Info
0
Total Open Ports
๐Ÿ“‹ Executive Summary

The security scan of www.go2kennewick.com found 70 issues including 18 high-risk and 5 medium-risk findings. The most critical issue is 'Exposed Google API Key in Page Source' which requires immediate attention. Full remediation steps are provided for each finding below.

A risk score of 10/10 (CRITICAL) indicates your business has security issues that need attention. The higher the score, the greater the chance of a breach, ransomware, or data theft.
โšก Top Recommendations
1
Exposed Google API Key in Page Source: Revoke/rotate this key immediately in the relevant provider's dashboard, then remove it from the homepage HTML.
2
Confirmed Sensitive-Content Exposure โ€” /currenteventsview.asp: Remove or block public access to /currenteventsview.
3
Confirmed Sensitive-Content Exposure โ€” /currenteventsview.aspx: Remove or block public access to /currenteventsview.
Exposed Google API Key in Page Source
Port SECRET
HIGH Fix immediately CWE-798 โ–ผ

A Google API Key was found exposed in the homepage HTML (AIzaSyโ€ฆt784) โ€” visible to anyone who views the page source

Anyone who views your page source or downloaded JavaScript can copy this credential and use it directly โ€” potentially running up charges on your account, sending data through your services, or accessing whatever this key controls.

Example: An automated bot scans newly indexed pages and JavaScript files for exactly this pattern, and the moment a key like this becomes public, it's tested against the relevant provider's API within minutes โ€” sometimes resulting in surprise usage charges or a data breach before anyone at the company notices.

Revoke/rotate this key immediately in the relevant provider's dashboard, then remove it from the homepage HTML. Secret keys must only ever be used in backend/server code, never embedded in HTML or JavaScript sent to the browser. Use environment variables on the server instead.

CWE-798 โ€” Use of Hard-coded Credentials
A username, password, or key is built directly into the code or configuration, where it can be found and reused by an attacker.

Missing HSTS Header
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-319 โ–ผ

Missing Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS) โ€” browsers aren't forced to always use HTTPS, leaving visitors open to downgrade attacks

An attacker on the same network as a visitor (public wifi, a compromised router, etc.) can trick their browser into using the insecure version of your site and intercept what they type โ€” raising the odds of stolen logins or payment details.

Example: An attacker on a shared network intercepts a visitor's first request (which defaults to HTTP) before the redirect happens, and silently serves them a fake version of the page instead of the real site.

Add the HSTS header to your web server. Nginx: add 'add_header Strict-Transport-Security "max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains" always;' in your server block. Apache: add 'Header always set Strict-Transport-Security "max-age=31536000"' in your config. Cloudflare: SSL/TLS > Edge Certificates > enable HTTP Strict Transport Security.

CWE-319 โ€” Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information
Sensitive data is sent over the network unencrypted, so anyone monitoring the connection can read it.

Environment Secrets Exposed (Unconfirmed)
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-798 โ–ผ

The path /.env returns a restricted-access response (401/403) that is genuinely distinct from how this site handles random nonexistent paths โ€” this confirms *something* is being specially handled at this path, but the response contains no content confirming what it actually is โ€” this exposes credentials or sensitive configuration that should never be public

Exposed credentials in /.env (API keys, database passwords, AWS access keys) give an attacker direct access to your critical systems โ€” databases, cloud infrastructure, third-party APIs, and internal tools. A single exposed credential can lead to total infrastructure compromise.

Example: An AWS credentials file exposed at /.env contained a key with full EC2/RDS access. An attacker used it to launch crypto miners on the account, incurring $50k in charges within 72 hours before discovery. The attacker also captured all database dumps and sold them on underground forums.

1. IMMEDIATELY rotate all exposed credentials (API keys, database passwords, SSH keys). Treat them as fully compromised. 2. Block public access to /.env via web server rules (Nginx: 'location ~ /\.env { deny all; }'). 3. Never commit secrets to version control โ€” use .gitignore and environment variable loaders (python-dotenv, Node's dotenv). 4. Use a secrets manager (AWS Secrets Manager, HashiCorp Vault, Doppler) for production credentials.

CWE-798 โ€” Use of Hard-coded Credentials
A username, password, or key is built directly into the code or configuration, where it can be found and reused by an attacker.

Exposed .git Directory (Unconfirmed)
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-527 โ–ผ

The path /.git/HEAD returns a restricted-access response (401/403) that is genuinely distinct from how this site handles random nonexistent paths โ€” this confirms *something* is being specially handled at this path, but the response contains no content confirming what it actually is โ€” this exposes the site's Git repository metadata, not an admin login

This is not a login page to brute-force โ€” a publicly accessible /.git/HEAD can let an attacker reconstruct this site's Git repository: full source code, configuration files, commit history, internal file paths, and any secrets that were ever committed, even ones later removed from the latest version but never rotated.

Example: A free, widely available tool rebuilds this site's entire source code and commit history from the exposed .git folder within minutes โ€” sometimes turning up a hardcoded API key or password that was deleted from the current code but never actually rotated.

Block public access to /.git/HEAD entirely โ€” it should never be servable. Nginx: 'location ~ /\.git { deny all; }'. Apache: '<DirectoryMatch "\.git"> Require all denied </DirectoryMatch>'. Better yet, don't deploy the .git folder to the live server at all. If any credentials were ever committed to this repo, rotate them โ€” treat them as compromised.

CSP script-src Too Permissive
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-693 โ–ผ

CSP script-src allows 'unsafe-inline', 'unsafe-eval', * โ€” an injected or hijacked script can still run freely

This setting defeats most of the protection CSP is meant to provide. If a third-party script you rely on is ever compromised โ€” the exact mechanism behind most 'watering hole' attacks โ€” it will execute without restriction and with no warning.

Example: A vendor's analytics or chat-widget script gets compromised at the source; because the policy still allows it (or allows inline/eval scripts generally), the malicious code runs exactly as if it belonged on the site, with no warning to anyone.

Tighten script-src to an explicit allowlist of trusted domains and drop 'unsafe-inline'/'unsafe-eval'/wildcards. Move inline scripts to external files or use a nonce/hash. Test changes with https://csp-evaluator.withgoogle.com before deploying.

CWE-693 โ€” Protection Mechanism Failure
A security safeguard that should be protecting the system is missing, disabled, or not strong enough.

Third-Party Scripts Missing Subresource Integrity (SRI)
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-353 โ–ผ

3 third-party script source(s) loaded without Subresource Integrity (SRI): app-script.monsido.com, docaccess.com, www.googletagmanager.com

If any of these third-party providers is ever compromised โ€” a real, recurring attack pattern called a 'watering hole' or supply-chain attack, where attackers hit a widely-trusted vendor instead of you directly โ€” the malicious code they inject would run on your site with no verification and no warning to you or your visitors.

Example: A widely-used analytics or widget provider gets compromised (a real, recurring attack pattern), and because the script loads without integrity verification, the malicious version executes on every visitor's browser with no warning to you or them.

Add integrity and crossorigin attributes to each third-party <script> tag, e.g. <script src="..." integrity="sha384-..." crossorigin="anonymous"></script>. Most CDNs (cdnjs, jsdelivr, unpkg) publish the correct hash on their site โ€” copy it directly.

CWE-353 โ€” Missing Support for Integrity Check
There's no way to verify that data wasn't altered in transit, so tampering would go unnoticed.

Insecure Cookie Flags (CP_IsMobile)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-1004, CWE-1275 โ–ผ

Cookie 'CP_IsMobile' is missing the HttpOnly, SameSite flag(s). Observed attributes: path=/, secure.

This cookie's name doesn't clearly indicate it holds session or authentication data, so the practical impact depends on what value it actually stores โ€” anywhere from low-stakes (a UI preference) to more sensitive (tracking or personalization data). Missing these flags means whatever the cookie does hold is more exposed than it needs to be to interception or script access.

Example: whatever value 'CP_IsMobile' holds could be read by an injected script (no HttpOnly) or intercepted on an unencrypted connection (no Secure) โ€” the actual severity depends on how sensitive that value turns out to be.

Add the missing flag(s) when setting this cookie: Secure (only send over HTTPS), HttpOnly (block JavaScript access), SameSite=Lax or Strict (limit cross-site sending). Most frameworks expose this as a one-line config option โ€” e.g. Flask: app.config['SESSION_COOKIE_SECURE']=True, SESSION_COOKIE_HTTPONLY=True, SESSION_COOKIE_SAMESITE='Lax'.

CWE-1004, CWE-1275 โ€” Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag; Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
The cookie isn't marked HttpOnly, so a malicious script on the page (such as one injected via XSS) can read and steal it. The cookie's SameSite attribute isn't set to a safe value, making it easier for other sites to trick a visitor's browser into sending it in cross-site requests.

Insecure Cookie Flags (CP_IsMobile)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-1004, CWE-1275 โ–ผ

Cookie 'CP_IsMobile' is missing the HttpOnly, SameSite flag(s). Observed attributes: path=/, secure.

This cookie's name doesn't clearly indicate it holds session or authentication data, so the practical impact depends on what value it actually stores โ€” anywhere from low-stakes (a UI preference) to more sensitive (tracking or personalization data). Missing these flags means whatever the cookie does hold is more exposed than it needs to be to interception or script access.

Example: whatever value 'CP_IsMobile' holds could be read by an injected script (no HttpOnly) or intercepted on an unencrypted connection (no Secure) โ€” the actual severity depends on how sensitive that value turns out to be.

Add the missing flag(s) when setting this cookie: Secure (only send over HTTPS), HttpOnly (block JavaScript access), SameSite=Lax or Strict (limit cross-site sending). Most frameworks expose this as a one-line config option โ€” e.g. Flask: app.config['SESSION_COOKIE_SECURE']=True, SESSION_COOKIE_HTTPONLY=True, SESSION_COOKIE_SAMESITE='Lax'.

CWE-1004, CWE-1275 โ€” Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag; Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
The cookie isn't marked HttpOnly, so a malicious script on the page (such as one injected via XSS) can read and steal it. The cookie's SameSite attribute isn't set to a safe value, making it easier for other sites to trick a visitor's browser into sending it in cross-site requests.

SSH Private Key Exposed (Unconfirmed)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-798 โ–ผ

The path /.id_rsa returns a restricted-access response (401/403) that is genuinely distinct from how this site handles random nonexistent paths โ€” this confirms *something* is being specially handled at this path, but the response contains no content confirming what it actually is โ€” this exposes credentials or sensitive configuration that should never be public

Exposed credentials in /.id_rsa (API keys, database passwords, AWS access keys) give an attacker direct access to your critical systems โ€” databases, cloud infrastructure, third-party APIs, and internal tools. A single exposed credential can lead to total infrastructure compromise.

Example: An AWS credentials file exposed at /.id_rsa contained a key with full EC2/RDS access. An attacker used it to launch crypto miners on the account, incurring $50k in charges within 72 hours before discovery. The attacker also captured all database dumps and sold them on underground forums.

1. IMMEDIATELY rotate all exposed credentials (API keys, database passwords, SSH keys). Treat them as fully compromised. 2. Block public access to /.id_rsa via web server rules (Nginx: 'location ~ /\.env { deny all; }'). 3. Never commit secrets to version control โ€” use .gitignore and environment variable loaders (python-dotenv, Node's dotenv). 4. Use a secrets manager (AWS Secrets Manager, HashiCorp Vault, Doppler) for production credentials.

CWE-798 โ€” Use of Hard-coded Credentials
A username, password, or key is built directly into the code or configuration, where it can be found and reused by an attacker.

Missing SPF Record โ€” Email Spoofing Possible
Port DNS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-290 โ–ผ

No SPF record โ€” there's no DNS-level list of which mail servers are authorized to send using this domain's envelope sender, so any server can pass an SPF check for your domain (note: this domain publishes no MX records, so it may not send email at all โ€” adding SPF/DMARC here is preventative, to stop spoofing of a non-sending domain, and is low priority)

Without SPF, nothing tells receiving mail servers which senders are legitimate for this domain's SMTP envelope, making it easier for forged mail to get through โ€” and easier for your own legitimate mail to be misjudged as spam. Note that SPF on its own, even correctly configured, doesn't stop the visible 'From:' address a recipient sees from being spoofed โ€” that requires DMARC (see below) to enforce alignment between SPF/DKIM and the From header.

Example: A customer receives an email that looks exactly like it's from the business โ€” same display name, same domain โ€” asking them to 'confirm' a payment or click a link, with nothing in DNS to stop the forgery or warn the recipient.

Add an SPF TXT record to your DNS listing every service that actually sends mail for this domain โ€” leaving one out will cause its mail to fail SPF and possibly get rejected. Log into your domain registrar, go to DNS, add a TXT record for '@' with a value matching your provider: Google Workspace: 'v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com -all' | Microsoft 365: 'v=spf1 include:spf.protection.outlook.com -all'. If you use additional senders (helpdesk, marketing platform, invoicing tool, etc.), add each as its own 'include:' entry in the same record โ€” a domain can only have one SPF TXT record, so don't create a second one. Use https://mxtoolbox.com/spf.aspx to verify, then add a DMARC record too so the visible From address is covered as well.

CWE-290 โ€” Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
A system trusts information that can be forged, so an attacker can impersonate a trusted party โ€” for email, missing SPF/DMARC/DKIM lets a sender fake your domain.

Missing DMARC Record โ€” Email Impersonation Risk
Port DNS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-290 โ–ผ

No DMARC record โ€” your domain has no DMARC email-authentication policy, which makes it easier to impersonate your business in email (note: this domain publishes no MX records, so it may not send email at all โ€” this is preventative hardening and low priority)

This makes it significantly easier for scammers to send convincing fake emails 'from' your business โ€” a common tactic in invoice fraud and phishing โ€” which can directly cost your customers money and damage trust in your brand.

Example: A scammer sends an invoice-fraud email that appears to come straight from the business's own domain; with no DMARC record in place, nothing tells the recipient's mail provider the message is forged, so it lands in the inbox looking completely legitimate.

Add a DMARC TXT record to your DNS. Go to your domain registrar's DNS settings, add a TXT record for '_dmarc' (not '@') with value: 'v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:youremail@yourdomain.com' Start at p=none โ€” this only turns on reporting, nothing is blocked yet. Review the aggregate reports for a few weeks to confirm every legitimate mail source for this domain (email provider, helpdesk, marketing tools, etc.) is passing DMARC alignment, then move to p=quarantine, and finally p=reject once you're confident nothing legitimate will be caught. Verify at https://mxtoolbox.com/dmarc.aspx

CWE-290 โ€” Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
A system trusts information that can be forged, so an attacker can impersonate a trusted party โ€” for email, missing SPF/DMARC/DKIM lets a sender fake your domain.

No Abuse Reports Found for Public IP
Port HTTPS
INFO Informational โ–ผ

Public IP 104.16.182.134 (hosted by Cloudflare, Inc.) has no abuse reports on AbuseIPDB in the last 90 days.

A clean IP reputation is a good sign โ€” no other indication needed here.

No action required.

Hosting Network Identified
Port HTTPS
INFO Informational โ–ผ

Public IP 104.16.182.134 is registered to Cloudflare, Inc. โ€” network: CLOUDFLARENET โ€” block: 104.16.0.0 โ€“ 104.31.255.255.

This is informational โ€” it tells you (and anyone else who looks it up) which hosting provider or network actually operates this IP. Useful for confirming you're hosted where you expect, or for context if the IP reputation check above flags anything.

No action required โ€” this is identifying information, not a vulnerability.

DKIM Not Detected Under Common Selectors
Port DNS
INFO Fix within 1 month CWE-290 โ–ผ

No DKIM record found under common selector names โ€” this does not confirm DKIM is unconfigured, only that it wasn't found under any of the selector names checked; many providers use a custom or provider-specific selector this check can't guess

If DKIM genuinely isn't configured, email providers increasingly use it as a trust signal, and its absence can make legitimate emails more likely to be flagged as suspicious or land in spam. But this check only queries a fixed list of common selector names (default, google, mail, etc.) โ€” many providers assign a random or account-specific selector, so this finding should be treated as 'couldn't confirm DKIM,' not 'DKIM is definitely missing.'

Example: A legitimate invoice email from the business gets flagged as suspicious or dropped into spam by the recipient's mail provider, simply because there's no DKIM signature to prove the message wasn't altered or forged in transit โ€” this only actually happens if DKIM is truly unconfigured, which this check alone can't confirm.

First confirm whether DKIM is actually configured: check your email provider's admin console (Google Workspace: Admin console > Apps > Gmail > Authenticate email; Microsoft 365: Defender > Email authentication > DKIM) for the exact selector name in use, since it's often not one of the common defaults this scan checks. If it turns out DKIM genuinely isn't enabled, turn it on there and add the resulting TXT record to DNS. If you're not sure how to check, share the selector name your provider gives you and this can be verified directly.

CWE-290 โ€” Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
A system trusts information that can be forged, so an attacker can impersonate a trusted party โ€” for email, missing SPF/DMARC/DKIM lets a sender fake your domain.

Detected Technology Stack
Port HTTPS
INFO Informational โ–ผ

Detected technology stack: Jquery 3.7.1, Jquery-Migrate 3.6.0.

Knowing your exact software versions helps attackers pick targeted exploits instead of guessing โ€” this isn't a vulnerability by itself, but it's worth knowing what your site publicly reveals about its own software.

No action required unless you'd prefer to hide version banners (e.g. removing WordPress's generator meta tag and readme.html, or disabling Apache/nginx's Server header version string) to make automated targeting slightly harder. Keeping the software itself patched matters far more than hiding the version number.

โœ… What You're Doing Right

Your server is reachable, which means the web checks and SSL analysis were able to run successfully.

๐Ÿš€ Next Steps

Start with the 18 HIGH risk finding(s) today โ€” these are your most urgent risks. First, address 'Exposed Google API Key in Page Source': Revoke/rotate this key immediately in the relevant provider's dashboard, then remove it from the homepage HTML. Then work through the remaining findings in order of severity.

โฌ‡๏ธ Download PDF
This report is for informational purposes only and represents a point-in-time automated scan. It is not a substitute for a professional penetration test.
Generated by SecureCheck ยท October 23, 2026