Skip to main content

Security report for billygrace.com

Billy Grace · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Billy Grace is a technology company focused on providing AI-driven marketing performance optimization solutions. The website positions itself as a platform for marketers and businesses seeking to leverage AI to control and optimize their marketing efforts. The company appears to operate in the technology sector with a business-to-business model, offering specialized AI marketing tools. The website is built on WordPress and uses common SEO and optimization plugins, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. The design and content quality are good, with clear navigation and mobile responsiveness. However, the absence of WHOIS data and lack of visible privacy and cookie policies indicate gaps in transparency and compliance. Security posture is moderate but could be improved by implementing security headers and better SSL configuration. Overall, the website is professional and functional but would benefit from enhanced compliance and security measures to increase trustworthiness and reduce risk.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
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. 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 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. 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 billygrace.com

This scan found 19 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
57
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
76

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention billygrace.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1
Employees
0
Customers
1
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

1 subdomain affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for billygrace.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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 targets marketing professionals and businesses interested in AI-powered marketing optimization. Its market position is that of a niche technology provider leveraging AI to improve marketing performance. The business model likely involves SaaS or subscription-based services. The website content suggests a small-sized company with a focused service offering. There is no evidence of parent or subsidiary companies. The lack of contact information and privacy policies may limit customer trust and regulatory compliance. The company uses standard marketing tools and plugins but does not show advanced analytics or advertising networks. Strategic partnerships or related domains were not identified from the content.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The website uses HTTPS but lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others that enhance protection against common web attacks. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. Incident response and security policy information are not present, reducing readiness indicators. The use of third-party plugins like Gravity Forms and FacetWP requires regular security audits to mitigate risks. Overall, the security posture is functional but requires improvements to meet best practices and regulatory standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Verify and publish WHOIS domain registration information to increase transparency and trust.
  4. Include visible contact information and incident response contacts to improve security readiness and customer trust.
  5. Conduct regular security audits of third-party plugins and scripts to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Billy Grace
Description
Billy Grace offers AI-driven solutions to control and optimize marketing performance.
Key services
AI marketing performance control, Marketing optimization
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, Google Fonts (Inter), ShortPixel CDN, Gravity Forms, FacetWP, WPRocket
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
50/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO, Gravity Forms, FacetWP
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible privacy protection or unregistered domain.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided content.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the content.
  5. Website uses WordPress CMS with common SEO and optimization plugins.
  6. No security headers or advanced security policies detected in the HTML content.
  7. Content is business-focused, targeting marketing professionals using AI tools.
  8. No adult or questionable content detected; content is safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with plugins including Yoast SEO, Gravity Forms, FacetWP, and WPRocket for optimization. It uses Google Fonts and a CDN for font delivery. The site shows good mobile optimization and moderate performance. Accessibility features are basic but present. SEO optimization is good with proper meta tags and structured data usage. However, no advanced frameworks or hosting provider details were identified. The site could benefit from improved security configurations and enhanced privacy compliance features. Technical debt appears low but monitoring plugin updates and security patches is recommended to maintain stability.
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 billygrace.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 billygrace.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.