Skip to main content

Security report for cybersecurityforum.com.br

TI Inside · Technology · Brazil

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Cybersecurity Forum is a specialized event organized by TI Inside, focused on digital security topics including advanced technologies like Generative AI, ransomware, identity management, and compliance. The event targets technology professionals and decision makers in Brazil, positioning itself as a key platform for knowledge exchange and networking in the cybersecurity sector. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and several plugins, but suffers from a lack of SSL/TLS security and slow performance. Security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS and modern TLS protocols, exposing visitors to risks. The site implements a GDPR-compliant cookie consent mechanism and uses Google Analytics and LinkedIn tracking for marketing and analytics. Overall, the business shows a moderate level of digital maturity but requires urgent improvements in security infrastructure to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  2. 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"

  3. 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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

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

Keep watching cybersecurityforum.com.br

This scan found 12 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
80
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
60
GDPR outside view
25
Average
67
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

The Cybersecurity Forum operates as an event business model, generating revenue through sponsorships and partnerships with technology companies such as Evolutia, Azion, Skymail, and others. The event is held in São Paulo, Brazil, and attracts a qualified audience from various industries interested in cybersecurity. The partnership ecosystem includes TI Inside as the organizer and Sympla as the ticketing platform. The forum covers trending topics like zero trust, ransomware, cloud security, and regulatory compliance, indicating alignment with current market demands. The presence of multiple high-profile speakers and sponsors suggests a strong market position within the Brazilian cybersecurity event landscape.

Security posture

The website currently lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS protocols, which is a critical security deficiency. No HTTP security headers are detected, and best practices such as HSTS and OCSP stapling are not implemented. While DNS records include SPF for email protection and no subdomain takeover vulnerabilities are present, the absence of HTTPS exposes users to potential interception and data tampering. The cookie consent mechanism is implemented, indicating some awareness of privacy compliance, but no explicit privacy policy or security policy documents are found. Incident response contacts and vulnerability disclosure policies are also absent, limiting transparency and readiness. Overall, the security posture is poor and requires immediate remediation.

Recommendations

  1. Install a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce HTTPS site-wide.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) and disable insecure protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP security headers including HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish clear privacy policy, terms of service, security policy, and incident response information on the website.
  5. Regularly update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  6. Enhance cookie consent transparency and provide detailed data retention policies.
  7. Consider performance optimization to reduce page load times and improve user experience.
  8. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and publish a security.txt file.
  9. Add physical contact information and phone numbers for better trust and compliance.
  10. Improve accessibility and SEO optimizations for broader reach and compliance.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with the Divi theme and uses several plugins including DiviFlash, WebToffee GDPR Cookie Consent, Popup Anything On Click, and Joinchat WhatsApp integration. It uses jQuery as a JavaScript library and integrates Google Tag Manager and LinkedIn Insight Tag for analytics and marketing. Hosting is managed via IP 162.240.77.186 with nameservers at tiinside.com.br. Performance is slow with a load time exceeding 23 seconds and a large number of resources (216). The site lacks SSL/TLS security, which is a major technical risk. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility and SEO are basic. There is no structured data or Open Graph metadata present, limiting rich search engine results and social media sharing enhancements.
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 cybersecurityforum.com.br. 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 cybersecurityforum.com.br.

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.