Skip to main content

Security report for burpbounty.net

Burp Bounty · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

Burp Bounty is a small cybersecurity software company specializing in professional website vulnerability scanning tools. Founded in 2020, the company offers a customizable scanning solution targeting cybersecurity professionals and website administrators. The website is built on WordPress using Elementor and Easy Digital Downloads, indicating a modern but standard technical infrastructure. Hosting is provided by OVH sas, a reputable registrar and hosting provider. The site employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and integrates Google Analytics for user tracking. However, the absence of a privacy policy and terms of service pages represents a compliance gap. Security posture is generally good with no exposed sensitive data, but the lack of security headers and DNSSEC reduces the overall security maturity. Contact information is limited to forms without explicit emails or phone numbers, which may affect user trust. Overall, the website is professional and functional but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Twitter, YouTube

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching burpbounty.net

This scan found 21 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
75
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
67

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Burp Bounty operates in the niche market of cybersecurity tools, focusing on vulnerability scanning for websites. Its business model revolves around offering a free trial and paid pro licenses, targeting cybersecurity professionals and penetration testers. The company maintains a consistent brand presence with a professional website and structured data markup to improve SEO. The use of Easy Digital Downloads suggests a direct-to-customer sales approach. While the company appears legitimate with consistent WHOIS data and domain age matching its founding year, the lack of explicit contact details and compliance documentation may limit trust among potential customers. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries from the website data. The company’s market position is that of a specialized tool provider within the cybersecurity technology sector.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with HTTPS enforced and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The integration of Google reCAPTCHA v3 on forms helps mitigate automated abuse. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces defense-in-depth. DNSSEC is not enabled, which could expose the domain to DNS spoofing attacks. No vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file is present, limiting transparency and incident response readiness. Contact channels for security incidents are not provided. Overall, while no critical vulnerabilities are evident, the site would benefit from implementing additional security best practices and compliance documentation to enhance trust and resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy page to address GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  2. Add terms of service and security policy pages to clarify user and business responsibilities.
  3. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security.
  5. Create and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  6. Provide explicit contact information including company email and phone numbers to improve trust.
  7. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and plugins to avoid vulnerabilities.
  8. Enhance cookie consent transparency and data retention disclosures.
  9. Consider adding accessibility improvements to better serve all users.
  10. Monitor analytics and tracking to ensure compliance with privacy commitments.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Burp Bounty
Description
Burp Bounty Professional Website vulnerability scanner. Professional, advanced, and highly customizable website scanner designed to find unique vulnerabilities.
Key services
Website vulnerability scanning, Professional and advanced scanning features, Customizable scanning options
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Easy Digital Downloads, Google Analytics, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of reCAPTCHA v3

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
MonsterInsights (Google Analytics plugin)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL
  2. No privacy policy page found, which is a compliance gap
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via a plugin
  4. No terms of service or security policy pages detected
  5. Contact information is limited to login and purchase forms; no explicit email or phone found
  6. Website built on WordPress with Elementor and Easy Digital Downloads
  7. Google Analytics used for tracking with opt-out mechanism
  8. No exposed sensitive data or obvious vulnerabilities in HTML
  9. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  10. Domain registered with OVH sas, no privacy protection
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder and Easy Digital Downloads for e-commerce functionality. Hosting is provided by OVH sas, with DNS managed via Cloudflare name servers but without DNSSEC enabled. The site uses Google Analytics via MonsterInsights plugin and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 for form protection. Performance is moderate with standard modern web technologies and responsive design. The site includes structured data in JSON-LD format for SEO enhancement. No critical technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected, but security headers are missing, and some CSS/JS optimizations could improve load times. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid for a small business but can be improved with enhanced security and privacy features.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with burpbounty.net. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review burpbounty.net.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.