Skip to main content

Security report for acbsp.org

Education · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website acbsp.org appears to represent an established entity in the education sector, likely related to accreditation or business education given the domain and WHOIS age. However, the actual website content is inaccessible due to a security captcha interstitial powered by DataDome, which blocks automated access and prevents content analysis. The WHOIS data shows a domain registered since 1999 with Network Solutions, LLC, indicating a mature domain but lacks detailed registrant organization information. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are detectable, nor is any contact information or business description available in the accessible content. The technical infrastructure includes JavaScript and uses a registrar-hosted DNS service without DNSSEC enabled. Security posture cannot be fully assessed due to content blocking, but the lack of HTTPS information and security headers in the provided data suggests room for improvement. Overall, the site’s risk assessment is limited by the lack of accessible content, but no explicit security threats or suspicious patterns are evident from the WHOIS data.

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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching acbsp.org

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. See sample alerts.

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
72
Security headers
80
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
75

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 domain age and registrar suggest a stable presence in the education sector, possibly as an accreditation body or professional organization. The lack of visible business information, contact details, or certifications on the accessible page limits insight into market positioning or competitive advantages. The use of DataDome indicates a concern for bot mitigation, which may reflect a need to protect proprietary content or user data. Without accessible content, revenue streams, partnership ecosystems, and growth indicators cannot be determined.

Security posture

The current security posture is difficult to evaluate fully due to the blocking captcha. The domain uses clientTransferProhibited status, which protects against unauthorized domain transfers. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a security gap. No security headers or HTTPS status are visible in the provided data. The use of DataDome suggests an active approach to mitigating automated threats. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found. Overall, the security maturity appears basic with significant room for enhancement in transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publicly display comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Enable HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and configure security headers to enhance site security.
  3. Publish clear contact information including security incident response contacts to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Enable DNSSEC to protect DNS integrity and prevent spoofing attacks.
  5. Consider providing accessible content or alternative verification methods to allow legitimate users and automated tools to access site information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is blocked by a security mechanism (DataDome captcha interstitial) preventing access to actual site content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
JavaScript

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
DataDome
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to a security captcha interstitial.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms detected in the provided HTML.
  4. WHOIS data shows a long-established domain with no privacy protection.
  5. Use of DataDome captcha indicates anti-bot protection but blocks content scraping.
  6. No SEO or accessibility metadata detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  7. No social media or external business links found in the provided content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses JavaScript and is hosted with Network Solutions, LLC. The domain is old and stable but DNSSEC is not enabled. The site is protected by a DataDome captcha interstitial that blocks content access, limiting technical analysis. No CMS or frameworks are detectable from the provided HTML snippet. Performance, SEO, and accessibility cannot be assessed due to content blocking. The site lacks visible metadata or structured data. Hosting and registrar information is consistent with a professional setup but technical modernization opportunities exist, especially in security and content accessibility.
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 acbsp.org. 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 acbsp.org.

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.