Assessing Security Standards in Popular Iranian Websites


The security of online users depends on various factors. One of the most effective factors is following security standards and use of reliable and updated technology; standards and technologies that have been created in recent years specifically to increase data and communication security on websites and various internet services. Although, numerous studies show that the current state of global web security is not desirable, and these standards and technologies are not being used as fast as they are developed. 1

Our research in CERTFA Lab on popular Iranian websites (414 websites) show that the security of Iranian websites is not different from the global level, and very few websites are fully utilizing the security standards and modern technologies.

According to our investigation, only 7 websites from our assessed sites have been used CSP2 configuration, which the implementation of and have more detail and other 5 websites just use the upgrade-insecure-requests option as a default setting for CSP. In other cases, popular websites such as, and, which have millions of daily visitors, not only did not use the CSP header, they have also forgotten to use the basic security header like X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection, etc.

Also, the results of modern standards analysis in this study (such as DNSSEC, CAA, DMARC, SPF, and Expect-CT), which is mandatory for most Internet businesses, indicate that just, one of the Iranian popular websites, has properly used these standard configurations.

Since these security standards and modern technologies are easy to use and cheap to implement, we could say that the reason for this undesirable situation might be the negligence of admins and service providers. son for this undesirable situation might be the negligence of admins and service providers.


The general security of websites has become a sensitive and important challenge for users and online business owners. The rising trend of cybercriminals has concerned websites owners and users. Finding numerous vulnerabilities in the technologies used in the hosting infrastructures and website designs, the hacking of popular websites and internet services and leaking the information of their users are among the reasons why these concerns have increased.

Although the issue of security in the digital world can never be guaranteed 100 percent, in most cases, implementing the standards and security policies, regular updates, and fixing the identified vulnerabilities minimize the security threats for the websites and their users.

Security experts and web-related technology developers constantly seek measures to fight these conventional problems and to increase security on the internet. As a result, each year we see new security standards and modern technologies being introduced in order to increase user security and patching security vulnerabilities.

In this regard, we could say the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) is one of the best sources of material for learning security tips about all websites. In the next steps, following and implementing standards such as HIPAA, PCI DSS, and NIST is considered necessary for businesses and websites that handle sensitive user data.

However, Our goal for sharing this analysis is not to explain the function of OWASP and other standards, as other educational sources have spent enough time explaining them fully. Our goal is to raise awareness about who follows these standards in Iran, and to encourage online platforms to implement security standards. We reviewed 414 most popular Iranian websites and assessed their general protocols of security standards in this research.

Assessment method

For this assessment, we chose the top 500 most popular websites in Iran according to Alexa on 23 August 2019, and in order to achieve more precision, we removed the non-Iranian websites from this list. Only 414 websites that are hosted and owned by Iranians have been examined. Also, we only assessed the “implementation of general protocols” and “websites configuration for HTTP response” in the same conditions, using these tools:

Assessed Standards and Criteria

In order to achieve reliable results, these criteria have been divided into two sections based on function and importance:

1- Basic security settings that all websites are required to implement:

2- Hardening security configuration that businesses and popular websites are recommended to implement:

Due to legal restrictions for advanced security tests, which must be approved by the owners of websites, we only assessed basic standards which all can be categorized as the general features of websites, but according to legal restrictions and our policies, we will not publish all details in this report. Additionally as a reminder, we did not penetration test or test bypass methods of configurations.

Results of reviews

In this section, for a brief definition of standards and types of tests, we have mentioned helpful descriptions from Mozilla Infosec and Hardenize Website at below of each chart.


Note: Websites may continue to listen on port 80 (HTTP) so that users do not get connection errors when typing a URL into their address bar, as browsers currently connect via HTTP for their initial request. Sites that listen on port 80 should only redirect to the same resource on HTTPS.


Note: All cookies should be created such that their access is as limited as possible. This can help minimize damage from cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities, as these cookies often contain session identifiers or other sensitive information.


Note: Access-Control-Allow-Origin is an HTTP header that defines which foreign origins are allowed to access the content of pages on your domain via scripts using methods such as XMLHttpRequest. crossdomain.xml and clientaccesspolicy.xml provide similar functionality, but for Flash and Silverlight-based applications, respectively. These should not be present unless specifically needed.


Note: X-Content-Type-Options is a header supported by Internet Explorer, Chrome and Firefox 50+ that tells it not to load scripts and stylesheets unless the server indicates the correct MIME type. Without this header, these browsers can incorrectly detect files as scripts and stylesheets, leading to XSS attacks. As such, all sites must set the X-Content-Type-Options header and the appropriate MIME types for files that they serve.


Note: X-Frame-Options is an HTTP header that allows sites control over how your site may be framed within an iframe. Clickjacking is a practical attack that allows malicious sites to trick users into clicking links on your site even though they may appear to not be on your site at all. As such, the use of the X-Frame-Options header is mandatory for all new websites, and all existing websites are expected to add support for X-Frame-Options as soon as possible.


Note: X-XSS-Protection is a feature of Internet Explorer and Chrome that stops pages from loading when they detect reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks. Although these protections are largely unnecessary in modern browsers when sites implement a strong Content Security Policy that disables the use of inline JavaScript (‘unsafe-inline’), they can still provide protections for users of older web browsers that don’t yet support CSP.


Note: Content Security Policy (CSP) is an HTTP header that allows site operators fine-grained control over where resources on their site can be loaded from. The use of this header is the best method to prevent cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities. Due to the difficulty in retrofitting CSP into existing websites, CSP is mandatory for all new websites and is strongly recommended for all existing high-risk sites.


Note: Subresource integrity is a recent W3C standard that protects against attackers modifying the contents of JavaScript libraries hosted on content delivery networks (CDNs) in order to create vulnerabilities in all websites that make use of that hosted library. For example, JavaScript code on that is loaded from has access to the entire contents of everything of If this resource was successfully attacked, it could modify download links, deface the site, steal credentials, cause denial-of-service attacks, and more.


Note: When a user navigates to a site via a hyperlink or a website loads an external resource, browsers inform the destination site of the origin of the requests through the use of the HTTP Referer (sic) header. Although this can be useful for a variety of purposes, it can also place the privacy of users at risk. HTTP Referrer Policy allows sites to have fine-grained control over how and when browsers transmit the HTTP Referer header.


Note: HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is an HTTP header that notifies user agents to only connect to a given site over HTTPS, even if the scheme chosen was HTTP. Browsers that have had HSTS set for a given site will transparently upgrade all requests to HTTPS. HSTS also tells the browser to treat TLS and certificate-related errors more strictly by disabling the ability for users to bypass the error page.


Note: DNSSEC is an extension of the DNS protocol that provides cryptographic assurance of the authenticity and integrity of responses; it’s intended as a defense against network attackers who are able to manipulate DNS to redirect their victims to servers of their choice. DNSSEC is controversial, with the industry split largely between those who think it’s essential and those who believe that it’s problematic and unnecessary.


Note: CAA (RFC 6844) is a new standard that allows domain name owners to restrict which CAs are allowed to issue certificates for their domains. This can help to reduce the chance of misissuance, either accidentally or maliciously. In September 2017, CAA became mandatory for CAs to implement.


Note: Expect-CT is a response HTTP header that web sites can use to monitor problems related to their Certificate Transparency (CT) compliance. Additionally, they can also instruct browsers to reject any certificates in their name that are are not CT-compliant.


Note: Transport Layer Security (TLS) is the most widely used encryption protocol on the Internet. In combination with valid certificates, servers can establish trusted communication channels even with users who have never visited them before. Network attackers can’t uncover what is being communicated, even when they can see all the traffic.


Note: Sender Policy Framework (SPF) is a protocol that allows domain name owners to control which internet hosts are allowed to send email on their behalf. This simple mechanism can be used to reduce the effect of email spoofing and cut down on spam.


Note: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) is a scalable mechanism by which a mail-originating organization can express domain-level policies and preferences for message validation, disposition, and reporting, that a mail-receiving organization can use to improve mail handling.


Note: DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities (DANE) is a bridge between DNSSEC and TLS. In one possible scenario, DANE can be used for public key pinning, building on an existing publicly-trusted certificate. In another approach, it can be used to completely bypass the CA ecosystem and establish trust using DNSSEC alone.


Note: SMTP Mail Transfer Agent Strict Transport Security (MTA-STS) is a mechanism enabling mail service providers to declare their ability to receive Transport Layer Security (TLS) secure SMTP connections, and to specify whether sending SMTP servers should refuse to deliver to MX hosts that do not offer TLS with a trusted server certificate.


Note: SMTP TLS Reporting (RFC 8460), or TLS-RPT for short, describes a reporting mechanism and format by which systems sending email can share statistics and specific information about potential failures with recipient domains. Recipient domains can then use this information to both detect potential attacks and diagnose unintentional misconfigurations. TLS-RPT can be used with DANE or MTA-STS.


Unfortunately, the results of our assessing at CERTFA Lab show that the current state of implementation for security standards on popular Iranian websites is not satisfactory. In most cases, basic HTTP security settings and headers are not used properly, and even on some websites, the configurations are implemented in such a way that their visitor’s security may be compromised.

In this regard, we recommend to all developers, managers, and owners of Iranian online businesses to pay close attention to security tips and official standards by reviewing their website status. Since applying security configuration and adhering to standard guidelines, given the abundance of resources available, is completely free and without additional costs, this can easily have a huge impact on improving their own security as well as users and the Internet.

Useful Resources and Tools


  1. Analysis of the Alexa Top 1M sites by Mozilla Observatory - April 2019
    Alexa Top 1 Million Analysis by Scott Helme - February 2019
  2. Content Security Policy