Vulnerability Scan Result
| Title: | Bitcoin Conference 2026 |
| Description: | The Bitcoin Conference is the world’s largest gathering of bitcoiners. Join us in Las Vegas for Bitcoin 2026 April 27 - 29 — a global convergence of industry leaders, groundbreaking announcements, and the most influential voices in the movement toward hyperbitcoinization. |
| IP address | 104.21.53.47 |
| Country | - |
| AS number | AS13335 |
| Net name | Cloudflare Inc |
| IP address | 172.67.209.1 |
| Country | - |
| AS number | AS13335 |
| Net name | Cloudflare Inc |
2082/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2083/tcp | https | nginx - |
2086/tcp | http | Cloudflare http proxy - |
2087/tcp | https | nginx - |
Web Application Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://b.tc/conference/2026 | Response headers do not include the Referrer-Policy HTTP security header as well as the |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the Referrer-Policy HTTP header, which controls how much referrer information the browser will send with each request originated from the current web application.
Risk description
The risk is that if a user visits a web page (e.g. "http://example.com/pricing/") and clicks on a link from that page going to e.g. "https://www.google.com", the browser will send to Google the full originating URL in the `Referer` header, assuming the Referrer-Policy header is not set. The originating URL could be considered sensitive information and it could be used for user tracking.
Recommendation
The Referrer-Policy header should be configured on the server side to avoid user tracking and inadvertent information leakage. The value `no-referrer` of this header instructs the browser to omit the Referer header entirely.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://b.tc/conference/2026 | Response does not include the HTTP Content-Security-Policy security header or meta tag |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application lacks the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header in its HTTP responses. The CSP header is a security measure that instructs web browsers to enforce specific security rules, effectively preventing the exploitation of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities.
Risk description
The risk is that if the target application is vulnerable to XSS, lack of this header makes it easily exploitable by attackers.
Recommendation
Configure the Content-Security-Header to be sent with each HTTP response in order to apply the specific policies needed by the application.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
| URL | Method | Parameters | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| https://b.tc/conference/2026 | GET | Query: mc_cid=8717c85a83 mc_eid=f86d6ed635 utm_campaign=8717c85a83-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_05_22_08_46_COPY_01 utm_medium=email utm_source=The+Bitcoin+Conference utm_term=0_-15b90ae4d0-294511419 Headers: User-Agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, lik... | Different hostname found for a source file cdn.prod.website-files.com |
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the target application includes scripts from external domains. This may be problematic as such scripts have the same level of access as the application's own scripts, which means they can interact with application data and perform actions as the current user.
Risk description
The risk is that cross domain file inclusion can lead to a wide variety security breaches if the external scripts are malicious or become compromised.
Recommendation
You do not have any control over what is in that code. Ensure files on the site are loaded from only trusted sources.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-829 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A8 - Software and Data Integrity Failures |
Evidence
| URL | Evidence |
|---|---|
| https://b.tc/conference/2026 | Response headers do not include the X-Content-Type-Options HTTP security header |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that the target application's server responses lack the X-Content-Type-Options header. This header is particularly important for preventing Internet Explorer from reinterpreting the content of a web page (MIME-sniffing) and thus overriding the value of the Content-Type header.
Risk description
The risk is that lack of this header could make possible attacks such as Cross-Site Scripting or phishing in Internet Explorer browsers.
Recommendation
We recommend setting the X-Content-Type-Options header such as `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff`.
Classification
| CWE | CWE-693 |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Evidence
Vulnerability description
Website is accessible.
Evidence
Vulnerability description
We have noticed that the server is missing the security.txt file, which is considered a good practice for web security. It provides a standardized way for security researchers and the public to report security vulnerabilities or concerns by outlining the preferred method of contact and reporting procedures.
Risk description
There is no particular risk in not having a security.txt file for your server. However, this file is important because it offers a designated channel for reporting vulnerabilities and security issues.
Recommendation
We recommend you to implement the security.txt file according to the standard, in order to allow researchers or users report any security issues they find, improving the defensive mechanisms of your server.
Classification
| OWASP Top 10 - 2017 | A6 - Security Misconfiguration |
| OWASP Top 10 - 2021 | A5 - Security Misconfiguration |
Infrastructure Vulnerabilities
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| b.tc | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:servers.mcsv.net ~all" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record for the domain is configured with ~all (soft fail), which indicates that emails from unauthorized IP addresses are not explicitly denied. Instead, the recipient mail server is instructed to treat these messages with suspicion but may still accept them. This configuration may not provide enough protection against email spoofing and unauthorized email delivery, leaving the domain more vulnerable to impersonation attempts.
Risk description
The ~all directive in an SPF record allows unauthorized emails to pass through some email servers, even though they fail SPF verification. While such emails may be marked as suspicious or placed into a spam folder, not all mail servers handle soft fail conditions consistently. This creates a risk that malicious actors can spoof the domain to send phishing emails or other fraudulent communications, potentially causing damage to the organization's reputation and leading to successful social engineering attacks.
Recommendation
We recommend changing the SPF record's ~all (soft fail) directive to -all (hard fail). The -all setting tells recipient mail servers to reject emails from any IP addresses not listed in the SPF record, providing stronger protection against email spoofing. Ensure that all legitimate IP addresses and services that send emails on behalf of your domain are properly included in the SPF record before implementing this change.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.b.tc | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:domains@b.tc; ruf=mailto:domains@b.tc; pct=100; fo=1" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the target uses p=quarantine in the DMARC policy. When a DMARC policy is set to p=quarantine, emails that fail DMARC validation are delivered but placed in the recipient’s spam or junk folder. Although it offers some protection, this policy is less strict than p=reject, which blocks such emails entirely.
Risk description
While emails failing DMARC validation are sent to the spam folder, users may still retrieve them from there, leading to a higher risk of phishing and spoofing attacks succeeding. Moreover, less strict enforcement may allow more fraudulent emails to reach user inboxes if misclassified.
Recommendation
We recommend considering moving to a stricter policy, such as p=reject, where emails that fail DMARC validation are completely rejected rather than delivered to spam folders. This reduces the risk of users interacting with potentially malicious emails.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| _dmarc.b.tc | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:domains@b.tc; ruf=mailto:domains@b.tc; pct=100; fo=1" |
Vulnerability description
We found that the DMARC record for the domain is not configured with sp policy, meaning that no policy is enforced for subdomains. When a DMARC record does not include a subdomain policy (sp directive), subdomains are not explicitly covered by the main domain's DMARC policy. This means that emails sent from subdomains (e.g., sub.example.com) may not be subject to the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain (example.com). As a result, attackers could potentially spoof emails from subdomains without being blocked or flagged, even if the main domain has a strict DMARC policy.
Risk description
Without a subdomain policy (sp directive) in the DMARC record, subdomains are not protected by the same DMARC enforcement as the main domain, leaving them vulnerable to spoofing attacks. This inconsistency can be exploited by attackers to send phishing emails from subdomains, undermining the organization’s overall email security.
Recommendation
To mitigate the risk, we recommend configuring the DMARC record with a subdomain policy by adding the sp=reject or sp=quarantine directive. This will extend DMARC enforcement to all subdomains, preventing spoofing attempts and maintaining consistent security across both the main domain and its subdomains.
Evidence
| Domain Queried | DNS Record Type | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| b.tc | A | IPv4 address | 104.21.53.47 |
| b.tc | A | IPv4 address | 172.67.209.1 |
| b.tc | NS | Name server | desi.ns.cloudflare.com |
| b.tc | NS | Name server | scott.ns.cloudflare.com |
| b.tc | MX | Mail server | 1 aspmx.l.google.com |
| b.tc | MX | Mail server | 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com |
| b.tc | MX | Mail server | 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com |
| b.tc | MX | Mail server | 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com |
| b.tc | MX | Mail server | 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com |
| b.tc | SOA | Start of Authority | desi.ns.cloudflare.com. dns.cloudflare.com. 2373077324 10000 2400 604800 1800 |
| b.tc | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:3031::ac43:d101 |
| b.tc | AAAA | IPv6 address | 2606:4700:3031::6815:352f |
| b.tc | TXT | Text record | "96c8c0b501c86839fcdf083ccdac627971851ed6" |
| b.tc | TXT | Text record | "ahrefs-site-verification_6f6829e98b701899713436f5bee18c6acfe387fad2ffa98ec5f7ae72f766a0b9" |
| b.tc | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=EOQxg_I-QjerFa7Pq4aOfyxAacLb8Df3Cn7gVg5VaF8" |
| b.tc | TXT | Text record | "google-site-verification=LlUTYdCA2Hik8ccM33Nf6mSn4hMhZcY_Wnua1XmVj-A" |
| b.tc | SPF | Sender Policy Framework | "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com include:servers.mcsv.net ~all" |
| _dmarc.b.tc | TXT | Text record | "v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto:domains@b.tc; ruf=mailto:domains@b.tc; pct=100; fo=1" |
Risk description
An initial step for an attacker aiming to learn about an organization involves conducting searches on its domain names to uncover DNS records associated with the organization. This strategy aims to amass comprehensive insights into the target domain, enabling the attacker to outline the organization's external digital landscape. This gathered intelligence may subsequently serve as a foundation for launching attacks, including those based on social engineering techniques. DNS records pointing to services or servers that are no longer in use can provide an attacker with an easy entry point into the network.
Recommendation
We recommend reviewing all DNS records associated with the domain and identifying and removing unused or obsolete records.
Evidence
| Operating System | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE | 91% |
Vulnerability description
OS Detection
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
We managed to detect the redirect using the following Request / Response chain.
Recommendation
Vulnerability checks are skipped for ports that redirect to another port. We recommend scanning the redirected port directly.
Evidence
| DKIM selector | Key type | Key size | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| rsa | 1422 | "v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAmKZlBAMqlMh3WC6+lmMf3/0ESyu9oo7axxrb2eqs16LEv63ZWiD2DQqkLPHx3ES0C5KYLohc+vgjiofr0ipsNlN17JCvpwwaBrvDL/ovxD0JgNZO26RebVDFpOsUyTIizLnHj0ZFt+eRk7EeE6HiwQxLAFwSRB9Hu4Pozyn0H6CTJXEoHUN8aUO7z7j3P1o1S" "rSsWFtcaZKe7WCYcWD+yxDOX/5mELIqe7+vDZyhnE0BdkCEZyuVTsGjS/Jq1qYig36MivZnEtxFthx1DTocxw3P70iP70K4xJnOn6MPSSGMSRp5wiUYjSBgwzxZwwnUBZLviaI25LYkO04q5PpYMwIDAQAB" |
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.
Evidence
| Software / Version | Category |
|---|---|
| Cloudflare | CDN |
Vulnerability description
We noticed that server software and technology details are exposed, potentially aiding attackers in tailoring specific exploits against identified systems and versions.
Risk description
The risk is that an attacker could use this information to mount specific attacks against the identified software type and version.
Recommendation
We recommend you to eliminate the information which permits the identification of software platform, technology, server and operating system: HTTP server headers, HTML meta information, etc.