Skip to main content

Security report for brisant-secure.com

Brisant · Other · N/a

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Network security and 1 other check.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Brisant appears to be a business-oriented website with a focus on security and compliance services, as suggested by the domain name and website title. The site is built on WordPress and uses modern web technologies such as Bootstrap, jQuery, and various JavaScript libraries to enhance user experience. The presence of cookie consent mechanisms and Google Tag Manager indicates an awareness of privacy and analytics needs. However, the website lacks explicit privacy policies, terms of service, and contact information, which are critical for trust and compliance. The WHOIS data is unavailable, raising concerns about domain legitimacy and transparency. Overall, the site presents a professional front but requires improvements in transparency and security disclosures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

      Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint

      What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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"

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

Keep watching brisant-secure.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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
88
Average
48

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 website positions itself as a security or compliance service provider, but lacks detailed business descriptions, contact details, or certifications that would establish market positioning or competitive advantages. The absence of registrant data and company information limits the ability to assess business credibility or partnerships. The use of marketing tools like Pipedrive LeadBooster suggests active lead generation efforts. The business model likely revolves around service provision in security or compliance sectors, targeting businesses needing such services. Growth indicators and partnerships are not evident from the available data.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS and implements cookie consent, which are positive security indicators. However, no security headers were detected, and there is no visible security or incident response policy. The lack of WHOIS registrant data and absence of contact information for security incidents reduce trustworthiness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were identified in the analysis, but the site would benefit from enhanced security headers and explicit security policies. Compliance with GDPR is only partially indicated through cookie consent, with no privacy policy found.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve transparency and compliance.
  2. Obtain and display clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for business and security inquiries.
  3. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available to enhance domain legitimacy and trust.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for vulnerabilities and update them promptly.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Brisant
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Swiper, AOS, Yoast SEO, WordPress
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage (implied by https URL)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Pipedrive LeadBooster
Marketing tools
Pipedrive LeadBooster Chatbot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or domain may not be registered
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with high confidence
  4. No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected
  5. No explicit contact information such as emails or phone numbers found
  6. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins and libraries
  7. Tracking and marketing scripts include Google Tag Manager and Pipedrive LeadBooster chatbot
  8. No security headers detected in provided data
  9. Content is business-oriented but sparse in descriptive text
  10. No adult or questionable content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with common plugins including Yoast SEO for search optimization. It uses Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for scripting, and integrates third-party services like Google Tag Manager and Pipedrive LeadBooster chatbot for analytics and marketing. Performance appears moderate with caching and minified CSS in use. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic. The site lacks advanced security headers and explicit privacy/security documentation, indicating areas for technical improvement. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the data.
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 brisant-secure.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 brisant-secure.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.