Skip to main content

Security report for bloombergconnects.org

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.bloombergconnects.org is currently inaccessible due to a PerimeterX Web Application Firewall (WAF) challenge page requiring human verification via captcha. This security mechanism blocks automated access and prevents retrieval of any meaningful content or business information from the site. Consequently, no metadata, privacy policies, contact details, or business descriptions are available for analysis. The WHOIS data is malformed and does not provide registrar, creation, or registrant details, further limiting trust and legitimacy assessment. The site loads several security and analytics scripts including New Relic and PerimeterX, indicating monitoring and protection measures are in place. However, the lack of accessible content and business information results in a low overall trust and credibility score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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 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 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

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

Keep watching bloombergconnects.org

This scan found 22 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
77
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
68

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

Due to the WAF blocking, no business intelligence data such as market positioning, business model, or key services can be extracted. The domain appears to be protected or restricted, and no contact or corporate information is publicly available. The external domains loaded are primarily related to security and analytics services rather than business partners or subsidiaries. This lack of transparency and accessibility limits any meaningful business intelligence insights.

Security posture

The presence of a PerimeterX WAF challenge indicates a strong security posture aimed at preventing automated attacks and bot traffic. The site uses New Relic for performance and error monitoring. However, the absence of visible security headers and policies, combined with the inability to access the site content, limits the evaluation of security best practices. The malformed WHOIS data and lack of registrant information reduce trustworthiness. Overall, while the site is protected by advanced WAF technology, the lack of accessible information and transparency is a concern for security and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Review and adjust WAF settings to allow legitimate user access while maintaining security.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible without WAF challenge.
  3. Provide visible contact information and incident response details on the website.
  4. Ensure WHOIS data is complete and accurate to improve domain trustworthiness.
  5. Implement security headers and SSL best practices to enhance security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

PerimeterX detected. Page is blocked by PerimeterX WAF with a human verification captcha challenge. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, New Relic Browser Agent, PerimeterX Captcha

Analytics and tracking

Services
New Relic Browser
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
New Relic
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to a PerimeterX captcha challenge.
  2. No meaningful content or business information is available on the landing page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or security policies are present.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, preventing domain age or ownership verification.
  6. Multiple external domains related to security and analytics are loaded.
  7. Page is heavily protected by security mechanisms preventing content access.
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs JavaScript heavily, including New Relic Browser monitoring and PerimeterX captcha scripts for bot mitigation. The HTML content is minimal and primarily serves the captcha challenge interface. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to blocked content. The site uses Google Fonts for typography. The technical stack indicates a focus on security and monitoring but lacks accessible content or SEO metadata. The malformed WHOIS data and absence of domain registration details suggest possible privacy protection or misconfiguration.
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 bloombergconnects.org. 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 bloombergconnects.org.

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.