Skip to main content

Security report for bententeam.com

BENTEN TEAMWORK · Finance · Latvia

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

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

BENTEN TEAMWORK is a specialized financial services company founded in 2018, focusing on providing outsourcing and advisory services to payment service providers and related financial entities within the EU. Their key offerings include AML advisory, personal data protection, payment IT infrastructure setup, and agency services for non-EU companies. The company targets a niche market of financial professionals and businesses requiring compliance and operational support in payments. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with the Avada theme and uses standard web technologies including jQuery and Google reCAPTCHA for form security. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices, with good SEO and accessibility basics. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and reCAPTCHA in use, but lacks DNSSEC and advanced security headers, which are recommended for improvement. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy and cookie consent banner present, but no terms of service or detailed security policies. Overall, the domain registration is consistent and legitimate, supporting the business claims. The website presents a professional and trustworthy image suitable for its target audience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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 bententeam.com

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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
53

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 finance sector, specifically targeting payment service providers and related financial businesses in the EU. Its business model revolves around providing specialized outsourcing and advisory services, leveraging expertise in AML, data protection, and payment infrastructure. The market positioning is niche but professional, with a clear focus on compliance and operational support. The presence of RSS feeds from reputable financial news sources suggests an emphasis on staying current with industry developments. The company maintains active social media profiles on Facebook and Instagram, enhancing its digital presence. No parent or subsidiary companies are identified, indicating a standalone small business. The website content and design reflect a consistent brand identity and professional approach, supporting credibility and trustworthiness.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and Google reCAPTCHA to secure user interactions, indicating a baseline security awareness. However, the absence of DNSSEC and missing security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represent gaps that could expose the site to certain risks. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published, which limits transparency and preparedness in case of security incidents. The WordPress CMS and plugins should be regularly updated to mitigate vulnerabilities. Overall, the security posture is moderate but can be significantly improved by implementing recommended best practices and publishing clear security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Regularly update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by adding a detailed cookie policy and terms of service.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
BENTEN TEAMWORK
Description
BENTEN TEAMWORK SERVICES Every financial project is unique and Benten knows about it. We are a team of Payments industry professionals. Our mission is to support the sustainable development of our clients’ business. We provide outsourcing services in the EU for payment service providers, advisory on AML, personal data protection, and payment IT infrastructure establishment. We also offer agency and representative services for non-EU companies.
Key services
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) advisory, Protection of personal data, Establishment of payment IT infrastructure, Agency and representative services for non-EU companies
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google reCAPTCHA, Fusion Builder (Avada theme)
Frameworks
WordPress CMS, Fusion Builder
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich for a niche financial services provider.
  2. Clear contact information and social media presence enhance trust.
  3. No terms of service or explicit security policies found, which could be improved.
  4. Use of WordPress and common plugins with Google reCAPTCHA indicates standard security practices but could be enhanced.
  5. No DNSSEC and missing security headers are notable security gaps.
  6. Cookie consent banner present, indicating some privacy compliance effort.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Avada theme and Fusion Builder, leveraging jQuery and Google reCAPTCHA for enhanced user interaction security. The site loads with moderate performance and is optimized for mobile devices with responsive design. SEO practices are good with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic but present. Hosting details are not explicit, but DNS is managed via ns.nano.lv servers and the domain registrar is Key-Systems GmbH. The lack of DNSSEC and security headers indicates some technical debt and security risk. Overall, the technical infrastructure is standard for a small professional service website but would 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 bententeam.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 bententeam.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.