Is www.ocf.io Safe? Security Score 88/100 | CyStack
www.ocf.io
Remote shell and file transfer (SSH/SFTP) –
Open Computing Facility
the open computing facility is an all-volunteer student organization dedicated to free and open-source computing for all uc berkeley students.
Industry
–
Origin
United States
Global rank
#3,536,682
Rank in United States
#1,061,980
Updated at
B88/100
Security level
Good
Data confidence
High
Scope checked
96.7%
The higher the score, the more externally observable protections the system has recorded. This page does not certify that the website is reputable, legitimate, or completely free of vulnerabilities.
Is the website “www.ocf.io” safe?
As of September 15, 2026 at 22:16, www.ocf.io has a security score of 88/100 (grade B: “Good”). CyStack’s automated assessment recorded 6 issues to review after completing 96.7% of applicable checks. The website owner should address “Known-exploited CVE candidates” first, then review the remaining items in order of impact.
Does www.ocf.io show known scam, phishing, or malware signals?
At assessment time, CyStack did not find www.ocf.io or related infrastructure on any scam, phishing, or malware warning list after checking 5 online reputation sources. This result reflects external observations; it does not guarantee absolute safety or verify the organization’s legal status or reputation.
A valid SSL certificate still does not prove that www.ocf.io is safe, legitimate, or free of scam signals. For a more complete assessment, this report also checks phishing and malware, exposed email records, IPs and open ports, subdomains, technologies, and CVEs that may apply to observed versions.
Does www.ocf.io use HTTPS, and is its SSL certificate valid?
www.ocf.io used a valid SSL certificate at assessment time, valid until December 13, 2026. This status may change when the certificate expires or the server configuration changes.
Data compiled from CyStack cybersecurity monitoring systems
CyStack compiles scan results from its internal cybersecurity monitoring systems, including CyStack VulnScan and CyStack Threat Intelligence, together with publicly available Internet data. The assessment only observes and analyzes information already available; it does not attempt unauthorized access, test passwords, send exploit code, or change or disrupt the assessed system.
These 3 failed checks or warnings have the greatest impact on the result for www.ocf.io.
Known-exploited CVE candidatesFound 1 known-exploited candidate(s), but the external product fingerprint requires verification.Critical
Why it matters
This check asks whether an applicable CVE candidate also appears in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. A positive match means attackers have used that vulnerability in real incidents and warrants urgent investigation, but the installed software still needs to be confirmed as affected.
What to do
Verify the installed product immediately and follow the CISA and vendor instructions for mitigation, patching, or upgrading if it is affected.
Email spoofing protection (DMARC)No DMARC record was found for the registrable email domain.High
Why it matters
DMARC lets the domain owner tell receiving services what to do when the visible From address is not verified by SPF or DKIM. Without DMARC, attackers have more opportunity to impersonate the domain in phishing email.
What to do
Publish a DMARC record at _dmarc, begin by collecting reports, and confirm that legitimate senders pass before applying a blocking policy.
Potential CVEs for observed versionsFound 2 potentially applicable CVE candidate(s), including 1 high or critical candidate(s).High
Why it matters
This check compares an observed product only when a reliable version and exact CPE identity are available, using applicability records from the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Any returned match is a lead, not confirmation: the installed software may include vendor fixes or differ from the version visible on the Internet.
What to do
–
Operating system
Public infrastructure and exposed software
Each public IP is grouped with its open services, identified products and any CVEs that may apply to the observed version.
Completed testing of 58 TCP ports
169.229.226.23death.ocf.berkeley.edu
2 open services2 identified products
Hosting or network providerProvider not identified
Network location–
ASN–
80HTTPNginx2 potential CVEs
ProductVersionPotential vulnerabilities
2607:f140:8801::1:23death.ocf.berkeley.edu
0 open services
Hosting or network providerProvider not identified
Network location–
ASN–
No open service was observed on this address in the ports checked.
Have @ocf.io email addresses appeared in exposed data or information-stealer (infostealer) logs?
No record associated with an @ocf.io email address was found in the currently available data. This does not rule out incidents that have not been observed.
Which public IPs, services, and ports does www.ocf.io expose?
The assessment observed 2 public IPs and 2 open ports for www.ocf.io. An open port is not the same as a vulnerability, but the website owner should keep every public service updated and appropriately restrict access.
How many subdomains of ocf.io have been discovered?
The assessment observed 171+ public subdomains of ocf.io. This list can reveal additional entry points such as APIs, administration systems, or test environments, but it does not mean that every subdomain is risky.
Confirm the exact installed package and read the vendor advisory. If that installation is affected, apply the vendor patch or upgrade to a fixed version.
The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.
When multiple server blocks are configured to share the same IP address and port, an attacker can use session resumption to bypass client certificate authentication requirements on these servers. This vulnerability arises when TLS Session Tickets https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_ticket_key are used and/or the SSL session cache https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_cache are used in the default server and the default server is performing client certificate authentication.
Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
The HTTP/2 protocol allows a denial of service (server resource consumption) because request cancellation can reset many streams quickly, as exploited in the wild in August through October 2023.
When multiple server blocks are configured to share the same IP address and port, an attacker can use session resumption to bypass client certificate authentication requirements on these servers. This vulnerability arises when TLS Session Tickets https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_ticket_key are used and/or the SSL session cache https://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_ssl_module.html#ssl_session_cache are used in the default server and the default server is performing client certificate authentication.
Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.