Skip to main content

Security report for alluresecurity.com

Allure Security · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Allure Security is a specialized provider of online brand protection services, focusing on mitigating risks such as spoofing and online fraud. The company appears to target businesses seeking to safeguard their brand reputation and digital presence. The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using Elementor and SEO plugins, indicating a reasonable level of digital maturity and technical infrastructure. Hosting is provided by DreamHost, a reputable provider, and the domain has been registered since 2009, supporting the company's established presence in the cybersecurity niche. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protections in place; however, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers suggests room for improvement. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies, and no explicit contact or incident response information is provided, which could impact trust and regulatory adherence. Overall, the website is professional and functional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security best practices to improve user trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

7 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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

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

Keep watching alluresecurity.com

This scan found 28 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
58
Average
52

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 operates in the technology sector, specifically in cybersecurity and brand protection services. Its business model revolves around providing specialized online security solutions to protect brands from spoofing and fraud. The website content and domain registration indicate a small-sized, focused business with a niche market position. The lack of visible contact information and certifications suggests a lean operation possibly targeting direct business clients or partners. The use of modern CMS and SEO tools indicates an intent to maintain a professional online presence and attract relevant traffic. No partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the data, and the company appears to operate independently. The absence of social media links and detailed business disclosures limits visibility into broader market positioning and growth strategies.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and has domain transfer protections enabled, which are positive security indicators. However, the lack of DNSSEC implementation and missing security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security robustness. No security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are published, which may hinder effective security incident management and compliance with regulations like GDPR or NIS2. The absence of privacy and cookie policies further weakens the compliance posture. No vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The security score is moderate, reflecting a need for improvements in policy transparency and technical security controls.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing attacks.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve browser security.
  4. Provide explicit contact information for security incidents, including dedicated security or abuse email addresses.
  5. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting and improve trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Allure Security
Description
Allure Security provides online brand protection services, focusing on protecting brands from online threats such as spoofing and fraud. The website highlights services related to brand security and protection.
Key services
Online brand protection, Spoofing detection and prevention, Fraud mitigation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO Premium, Elementor, Litho Addons, Elementskit, Font Awesome, Google Fonts, Akamai DNS
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no WAF or blocking mechanisms.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly listed on the homepage or in metadata.
  4. Website uses modern WordPress CMS with Elementor and SEO plugins.
  5. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information.
  6. No social media links or company contact details found in the provided HTML content.
  7. Domain registration is stable and consistent with business claims.
  8. No suspicious or malicious indicators detected in the content or domain data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder and Yoast SEO Premium plugin, indicating a modern and SEO-optimized infrastructure. Hosting is provided by DreamHost, a reputable provider, and DNS is managed via Akamai name servers. The site uses multiple web fonts and icon libraries such as Font Awesome and Themify, contributing to a visually appealing design. Performance is moderate with preloading of key images and fonts, and mobile optimization is good based on responsive design elements. Accessibility features are basic but present. No broken elements or errors were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of security headers and DNSSEC indicates technical debt in security hardening. Overall, the technical stack is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and privacy compliance 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 alluresecurity.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 alluresecurity.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.