Skip to main content

Security report for bsasoftware.com

Other · N/a

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

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.bsasoftware.com appears to be an active online presence with marketing and analytics integrations such as Google Analytics, HubSpot, and CallRail. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises significant concerns about the legitimacy and ownership of the domain. The website lacks critical business information including contact details, privacy policies, and terms of service, which diminishes trustworthiness. Technically, the site is built on WordPress and uses common web technologies but shows only basic implementation with limited content and minimal SEO or accessibility features. Security posture is weak with no evident security headers or advanced protections. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile and requires significant improvements in transparency, security, and compliance to be considered credible.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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 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

  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 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 bsasoftware.com

This scan found 17 issues across 5 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
72

Not counted

  • DNS health: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 lack of explicit business information on the site and missing WHOIS data, it is difficult to ascertain the company's market position, business model, or sector focus. The presence of marketing tools suggests a business intent to engage customers digitally, but the absence of contact or legal information limits confidence in the business operations. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The site likely targets a general business audience but fails to clearly communicate its value proposition or services.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is minimal. HTTPS is presumably enabled but no security headers were detected. There is no evidence of incident response contacts, vulnerability disclosure policies, or security certifications. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates poor compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR. The site is accessible without WAF blocking, but the absence of WHOIS data and security best practices suggests a higher risk profile. Immediate attention to security headers, policy disclosures, and domain registration is recommended.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  3. Add clear contact information including company address, phone, and email.
  4. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact to improve security transparency.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, HubSpot, Font Awesome
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Gauges, HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
CallRail
Tracking pixels
Gauges
Marketing tools
HubSpot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data unavailable or domain unregistered
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No contact information or business details disclosed
  4. Website uses common marketing and analytics tools
  5. Website content is minimal and lacks descriptive business information
  6. No security headers or advanced security practices detected
  7. No evidence of security incident response or vulnerability disclosure
  8. Website appears accessible with no WAF blocking
  9. External links mostly to analytics and marketing service domains
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress and uses standard web technologies including JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, HubSpot, and Font Awesome. The site loads with moderate performance and basic mobile optimization. SEO and accessibility features are minimal. No advanced frameworks or hosting provider details are evident. The site could benefit from technical modernization, improved performance optimization, and enhanced accessibility compliance to improve user experience and search engine ranking.
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 bsasoftware.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 bsasoftware.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.