4
/10

Security Report

gaiaonline.com
MEDIUM RISK โ€” unchanged from last scan
Scan DateAugust 30, 2026
Scan Time08:00 AM
Open Ports0
Public IP184.32.216.103
AI ModelRule-based (AI unavailable)
0
High Risk
7
Medium Risk
12
Low / Info
0
Total Open Ports
๐Ÿ“‹ Executive Summary

The security scan of gaiaonline.com found 19 medium and low severity issues. No critical vulnerabilities were detected, but 7 issues should be addressed this week to harden your security posture. Detailed fix instructions are included for each finding.

A risk score of 4/10 (MEDIUM) 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
Outdated TLS Version Accepted (TLSv1.1): Disable TLS 1.
2
Missing HSTS Header: Add the HSTS header to your web server.
3
Missing Content-Security-Policy (CSP): Add a Content-Security-Policy header, but roll it out carefully โ€” a misconfigured CSP can break legitimate scripts/styles on the site.
Outdated TLS Version Accepted (TLSv1.1)
Port SSL
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-327 โ–ผ

Server accepts TLSv1.1 which is deprecated and insecure since 2020

Security scanners and compliance audits (PCI-DSS, SOC 2, cyber-insurance questionnaires, etc.) flag outdated TLS versions as a failing item, and major browsers are gradually moving toward blocking these connections entirely.

Example: A compliance auditor or cyber-insurance questionnaire runs an automated scan, flags the outdated TLS version as a failed control, and the business has to scramble to fix it before a policy renewal or contract can close.

Disable TLS 1.0 and 1.1 in your web server config. For Nginx: add 'ssl_protocols TLSv1.2 TLSv1.3;' to your server block. For Apache: set 'SSLProtocol all -SSLv3 -TLSv1 -TLSv1.1' in ssl.conf. Then restart the server and verify at https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/

CWE-327 โ€” Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
The encryption method in use is outdated or weak enough that attackers can break it with modern tools.

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.

Missing Content-Security-Policy (CSP)
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-693 โ–ผ

Missing Content-Security-Policy (CSP) โ€” this site has no CSP defense-in-depth layer, so if any cross-site scripting weakness exists elsewhere it's easier to exploit; this finding on its own doesn't mean an XSS vulnerability exists on this site

CSP is a defense-in-depth browser control, not evidence of an active vulnerability by itself โ€” but if an attacker ever manages to slip malicious script onto your site through some other weakness (e.g. a vulnerable plugin or a comment field), a good CSP is often what stops that script from running and stealing customer data such as login sessions or payment details. Without it, that second layer of protection isn't there.

Example: A vulnerable comment form or compromised ad widget lets an attacker inject a script tag; with a properly scoped CSP in place, the browser would refuse to run it โ€” without CSP, that same injected script runs freely and can forward a visitor's session cookie to the attacker.

Add a Content-Security-Policy header, but roll it out carefully โ€” a misconfigured CSP can break legitimate scripts/styles on the site. Start by deploying it in Report-Only mode first, which reports violations without blocking anything: 'add_header Content-Security-Policy-Report-Only "default-src \'self\'; script-src \'self\'; object-src \'none\'; report-uri /csp-report";' Review the reports for a while to catch anything the policy would break, adjust the policy, then switch the header name to 'Content-Security-Policy' (without '-Report-Only') to start enforcing it. For WordPress or complex sites, use https://csp-evaluator.withgoogle.com to help build the policy.

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

Insecure Cookie Flags (gaia55_sid)
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-614, CWE-1275 โ–ผ

Cookie 'gaia55_sid' is missing the Secure, SameSite flag(s). Observed attributes: path=/, domain=.gaiaonline.com, httponly.

This cookie's name suggests it may hold a session or authentication token, though its actual contents weren't inspected. If it does, a cookie missing these flags is easier to steal through cross-site scripting or to intercept over an unencrypted connection โ€” and a stolen session cookie can let an attacker impersonate that logged-in user without ever needing their password.

Example: A visitor on public wifi has their session cookie intercepted because it wasn't marked Secure, or a malicious ad script reads it directly because it wasn't marked HttpOnly โ€” either way, the attacker is now logged in as that user without ever seeing their password.

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-614, CWE-1275 โ€” Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute; Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
The cookie isn't marked Secure, so a browser could send it over an unencrypted connection where it can be intercepted. 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.

Apache Server Status Exposed (Unconfirmed)
Port HTTPS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-200 โ–ผ

The path /server-status 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 internal server diagnostic information, not a login panel

This page reveals internal details about the server's configuration, active connections, or recent errors โ€” not something the general public should be able to see, and useful reconnaissance an attacker can use to plan a more targeted attack elsewhere on the site.

Example: An attacker reviews this page to learn internal server details, request patterns, or recent error messages, then uses that information to plan a more targeted attack elsewhere on the site instead of guessing blind.

Restrict access to /server-status by IP allowlist, or disable it entirely if not needed. Nginx: 'location ^~ /server-status { allow YOUR_IP; deny all; }'. Apache ('server-status'/'server-info'): add 'Require ip YOUR_IP' inside the relevant <Location> block, or remove the module if unused.

CWE-200 โ€” Exposure of Sensitive Information
The system reveals information to someone who shouldn't have access to it.

Weak DKIM Key โ€” 1024-bit RSA (selector: dkim)
Port DNS
MEDIUM Fix within 1 week CWE-326 โ–ผ

DKIM key for selector 'dkim' appears to be approximately 1024 bits โ€” 1024-bit RSA keys are considered weak by modern standards and NIST has deprecated them. A well-resourced attacker could factor this key, breaking your email authentication.

A forged DKIM signature lets an attacker send phishing or fraud emails that cryptographically appear to come from your domain โ€” bypassing email filters that rely on DKIM as a trust signal, and making impersonation emails indistinguishable from your real ones.

Example: A security researcher demonstrated in a published study that 512-bit DKIM keys could be factored in under 72 hours using cloud computing resources costing less than $100 โ€” allowing anyone with that capability to forge valid email signatures for the affected domain.

Upgrade the DKIM key for selector 'dkim' to 2048 bits. Generate a new key through your email provider, update the DNS TXT record to the new public key, and retire the old 1024-bit key.

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

5 third-party script source(s) loaded without Subresource Integrity (SRI): a.pub.network, cdn1.gaiaonline.com, graphics.gaiaonline.com, sm1.selectmedia.asia, 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 (gaia55_tag)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-614, CWE-1275 โ–ผ

Cookie 'gaia55_tag' is missing the Secure, SameSite flag(s). Observed attributes: expires=Mon, 30-Aug-2027 08:00:26 GMT, path=/, domain=.gaiaonline.com, httponly.

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 'gaia55_tag' 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-614, CWE-1275 โ€” Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute; Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
The cookie isn't marked Secure, so a browser could send it over an unencrypted connection where it can be intercepted. 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 (gaia55_prp)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-614, CWE-1275 โ–ผ

Cookie 'gaia55_prp' is missing the Secure, SameSite flag(s). Observed attributes: expires=Tue, 29-Sep-2026 08:00:26 GMT, path=/, domain=.gaiaonline.com, httponly.

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 'gaia55_prp' 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-614, CWE-1275 โ€” Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute; Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
The cookie isn't marked Secure, so a browser could send it over an unencrypted connection where it can be intercepted. 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 (gaia55_ano)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-614, CWE-1275 โ–ผ

Cookie 'gaia55_ano' is missing the Secure, SameSite flag(s). Observed attributes: path=/, domain=.gaiaonline.com, httponly.

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 'gaia55_ano' 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-614, CWE-1275 โ€” Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute; Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
The cookie isn't marked Secure, so a browser could send it over an unencrypted connection where it can be intercepted. 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 (hdr_town_name)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-614, CWE-1275 โ–ผ

Cookie 'hdr_town_name' is missing the Secure, SameSite flag(s). Observed attributes: Domain=.gaiaonline.com, Path=/, HttpOnly.

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 'hdr_town_name' 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-614, CWE-1275 โ€” Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute; Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
The cookie isn't marked Secure, so a browser could send it over an unencrypted connection where it can be intercepted. 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.

Apache Server Info Exposed (Unconfirmed)
Port HTTPS
LOW Fix within 1 month CWE-200 โ–ผ

The path /server-info 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 internal server diagnostic information, not a login panel

This page reveals internal details about the server's configuration, active connections, or recent errors โ€” not something the general public should be able to see, and useful reconnaissance an attacker can use to plan a more targeted attack elsewhere on the site.

Example: An attacker reviews this page to learn internal server details, request patterns, or recent error messages, then uses that information to plan a more targeted attack elsewhere on the site instead of guessing blind.

Restrict access to /server-info by IP allowlist, or disable it entirely if not needed. Nginx: 'location ^~ /server-info { allow YOUR_IP; deny all; }'. Apache ('server-status'/'server-info'): add 'Require ip YOUR_IP' inside the relevant <Location> block, or remove the module if unused.

CWE-200 โ€” Exposure of Sensitive Information
The system reveals information to someone who shouldn't have access to it.

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

Public IP 184.32.216.103 (hosted by Amazon.com, 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.

โœ… What You're Doing Right

No high-risk open ports were detected from the internet โ€” your firewall appears to be blocking dangerous services.

๐Ÿš€ Next Steps

Address the 7 MEDIUM risk finding(s) this week. Start with 'Outdated TLS Version Accepted (TLSv1.1)': Disable TLS 1.

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 August 30, 2026