Skip to main content

Security report for 2020spaces.com

20-20 Technologies Inc. · Technology · Canada

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

20-20 Technologies Inc. operates the 2020spaces.com website, providing end-to-end software solutions tailored for designers, manufacturers, and retailers. The company offers a broad portfolio including interior design software, manufacturing solutions, and retail space planning tools, positioning itself as a comprehensive technology provider in the design and manufacturing sectors. Their market presence is supported by a well-structured website with multilingual support, extensive product information, and active engagement channels including social media and events. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with a mature tech stack including Gravity Forms, Yoast SEO, and marketing integrations such as Marketo and Bizible. Performance is moderate with room for optimization, and mobile usability is good. Security posture is basic with TLS 1.2/1.3 support and no critical vulnerabilities detected, but lacks advanced security headers and mechanisms like HSTS and OCSP stapling. Privacy and cookie policies are present with consent mechanisms, but no explicit security or incident response policies are found. Overall, the site reflects a professional and trustworthy digital presence aligned with its business objectives.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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

5 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 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

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching 2020spaces.com

This scan found 20 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
67
Security headers
30
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
63

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

The company targets professional designers, manufacturers, and retailers globally, offering subscription-based software and content services. Their business model includes direct sales, subscription services, and content catalog management. The presence of partner domains such as cyncly.com and a dedicated store subdomain indicates a diversified ecosystem supporting customer engagement and commerce. The company maintains a strong brand identity and consistent messaging, leveraging SEO and marketing tools to drive traffic and conversions. Their participation in industry events and training programs further strengthens market positioning and customer relationships.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security maturity level with standard SSL/TLS configurations and SPF DNS records to protect email integrity. However, the absence of DNSSEC, CAA records, HSTS, and OCSP stapling indicates gaps in advanced security practices. No dedicated security policy or incident response information is publicly available, which may impact transparency and trust for security-conscious users. The use of third-party marketing and tracking scripts introduces moderate user tracking, necessitating robust privacy compliance measures. Overall, the security posture is adequate for general business operations but requires enhancements to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  2. Implement OCSP stapling to improve SSL certificate revocation checking performance and security.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan to enhance transparency and trust.
  4. Enable DNSSEC and configure CAA records to protect DNS integrity and certificate issuance.
  5. Review and minimize third-party tracking scripts to improve privacy compliance and reduce attack surface.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress CMS with a mature plugin ecosystem including Yoast SEO for search optimization, Gravity Forms for data collection, and Revolution Slider for rich media presentation. The tech stack includes jQuery and integrates marketing tools such as Marketo, Bizible, and Cookiebot for consent management. Performance metrics indicate a slow load time with a large number of resources and page size, suggesting opportunities for optimization. Mobile optimization and accessibility are rated good, supporting a broad user base. Hosting details are not explicit but IP addresses suggest a dedicated or managed hosting environment. Technical risks include potential performance bottlenecks and missing advanced security configurations.
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 2020spaces.com. 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 2020spaces.com.

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.