Skip to main content

Security report for asxgw.com

Allsecure · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website asxgw.com serves as a login portal for a payment gateway service branded as 'Gateway' by Allsecure. The business appears to focus on providing secure payment processing services to businesses and users requiring authentication for financial transactions. The domain was registered in 2019 and is maintained with standard protections such as clientDeleteProhibited status and HTTPS encryption. The site uses modern web technologies including Bootstrap, jQuery, and Sentry for error tracking, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates basic best practices such as HTTPS enforcement and CSRF token usage in forms. However, it lacks visible HTTP security headers and DNSSEC is not enabled, which are areas for improvement. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present on the login page, which limits compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No contact or incident response information is published, reducing transparency. Overall, the site is functional and moderately secure but would benefit from enhanced privacy disclosures, improved security headers, and more comprehensive compliance documentation. The domain registration data supports legitimacy with consistent registration details and no privacy protection masking. The absence of WAF or blocking mechanisms allows full content access for analysis. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing privacy and cookie policies, implementing security headers, and providing clear contact and incident response channels to improve trust and compliance.

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

5 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
    • 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 asxgw.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
52
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
70

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

Allsecure operates in the finance sector as a payment gateway service provider, targeting businesses and users requiring secure payment processing. The business model is B2B, focusing on transaction authentication and gateway services. The company was founded in 2019, indicating a relatively new entrant in the payment processing market. The website branding is consistent and professional but basic in content scope. There is no evidence of parent or subsidiary companies. The lack of published policies and contact information suggests a lean operational model or limited public-facing presence. The use of Cloudflare DNS and GoDaddy registrar indicates standard industry partnerships. No advertising or affiliate programs are evident, suggesting a focus on core service delivery rather than marketing expansion.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, and CSRF tokens protect form submissions, which are positive indicators. The use of Sentry for error monitoring shows proactive error and incident tracking. However, the absence of DNSSEC and HTTP security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options represents gaps that could be exploited. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, limiting external security reporting. The site does not expose sensitive data in the HTML content. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for a login portal but requires enhancements to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement comprehensive HTTP security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.
  5. Provide visible contact information and incident response channels to enhance transparency and support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Allsecure
Description
The website appears to be a login portal for a payment gateway service branded as 'Gateway' by Allsecure, likely serving financial transaction processing or payment services.
Key services
Payment gateway services, User authentication/login portal
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Sentry (error tracking), Cloudflare DNS, Bootstrap CSS, Custom CSS and JS, Web Components
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • CSRF tokens implemented in login form
  • Use of Sentry for error monitoring
  • Client-side password complexity regex enforced

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a login portal for a payment gateway service branded as Allsecure Gateway.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the login page.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found on the page.
  4. Use of CSRF tokens and HTTPS indicates basic security hygiene.
  5. No WAF or blocking detected; site content fully accessible.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response information published.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  8. Use of Sentry for error tracking and Cloudflare DNS for domain resolution.
  9. Domain WHOIS data is consistent and domain age appropriate.
  10. No advertising or marketing tools detected beyond error tracking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for DOM manipulation, and Sentry for error tracking. The presence of web components indicates some modular frontend architecture. The site is hosted with DNS managed by Cloudflare, providing reliable DNS resolution. Performance appears moderate with no explicit indicators of slow loading. Mobile optimization is basic but present. Accessibility features are minimal but include focus styles and semantic HTML. SEO optimization is basic with standard meta tags but no Open Graph or structured data detected. The site lacks a CMS indication, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Technical debt appears low but could be improved with enhanced security headers 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 asxgw.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 asxgw.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.