Skip to main content

Security report for auditpartner.ee

AuditPartner · Finance · Estonia

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

30/100

Risk levelHigh

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

AuditPartner is a small Estonian auditing and financial consulting firm with a website primarily in Estonian and an English language option. The company positions itself as a professional service provider focusing on seeing beyond the numbers, targeting businesses requiring auditing and financial services. The website is built on WordPress with common web technologies such as jQuery and Bootstrap, indicating a standard but modern technical infrastructure. Performance and mobile optimization are moderate to good, with basic SEO and accessibility features. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration but lacks important security headers and visible security policies such as privacy, cookie, or incident response policies. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, and no contact information such as emails or phone numbers are explicitly provided on the homepage. These gaps reduce the overall privacy compliance and security posture scores. Overall, the website is functional and professionally designed but lacks critical compliance and security transparency elements. The domain WHOIS data is consistent with the business claims, supporting legitimacy. Strategic improvements in privacy policy publication, security headers, and contact transparency would enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

10 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.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

  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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching auditpartner.ee

This scan found 24 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
10
Average
30

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

AuditPartner operates in the finance sector, providing auditing and consulting services primarily to Estonian businesses. The company appears to be a small-sized entity with a focused service offering. The website content and structure suggest a straightforward business model centered on professional services. There is no evidence of partnerships, subsidiaries, or parent companies from the website or WHOIS data. The lack of visible certifications or trust badges may limit competitive advantage. The bilingual website indicates an intent to serve both local and English-speaking clients, potentially expanding market reach. The company could benefit from enhanced digital marketing and clearer contact channels to improve client acquisition and trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates basic security hygiene with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposure of sensitive data. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces protection against common web attacks. The lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates a low maturity in security governance and transparency. No signs of vulnerable libraries or insecure forms were detected, but the site could improve by implementing security best practices and compliance with GDPR requirements. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires enhancements to meet higher standards.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Implement essential security headers to protect against common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Add clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and incident reporting.
  4. Establish and publish an incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure process.
  5. Enhance SEO, accessibility, and content quality to improve user experience and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
AuditPartner
Description
AuditPartner is a company providing auditing and financial services, focusing on seeing beyond the numbers.
Key services
Auditing, Financial consulting
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, WordPress, PHP
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. Contact information such as emails or phone numbers is not explicitly present in the HTML content.
  4. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins and libraries.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  6. No visible certifications or security frameworks mentioned.
  7. Website content is primarily in Estonian with English language option available.
  8. No social media links or company emails explicitly found.
  9. Logo image is present and consistent with company branding.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using standard technologies including jQuery and Bootstrap for frontend functionality. The site loads external resources from Google Fonts and Snazzy Maps for styling and map features. Performance is moderate with no critical errors detected. Mobile optimization is good, and the site uses responsive design principles. However, the site lacks advanced SEO metadata such as Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data, limiting social media integration and search engine optimization. There is no evidence of advanced analytics or tracking tools. The technical stack is standard and maintainable but could benefit from modernization and enhanced 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 auditpartner.ee. 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 auditpartner.ee.

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.