Skip to main content

Security report for ccbx.com

CCBX · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CCBX operates as a fintech banking partner focused on embedded finance solutions, offering customizable lending, card, account, and payment products tailored to fintech companies and businesses. The company emphasizes compliance, risk management, and technology innovation to support its partners in the digital financial landscape. The website reflects a medium-sized fintech entity with a professional design and consistent branding, supported by partner logos from notable fintech firms. Technically, the site is built on WordPress and hosted with Microsoft Azure DNS, but suffers from a lack of HTTPS and slow performance, which impacts user trust and security posture. Security configurations are minimal, with no valid SSL certificate, no modern TLS protocols, and absence of security headers, representing critical vulnerabilities. Privacy compliance is partial, with a comprehensive privacy policy hosted on a related domain but no cookie consent mechanism on the main site. Overall, the site is functional and informative but requires urgent security improvements to meet industry standards and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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. 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 ccbx.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
100
Security headers
25
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
64

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 positions itself as an innovative embedded finance banking partner, targeting fintech firms needing flexible, compliant financial product solutions. Its business model revolves around providing core-agnostic, API-driven banking services with strong compliance oversight and risk management frameworks. The presence of partner logos such as Robinhood and Prosper indicates integration within a fintech ecosystem, enhancing credibility. Revenue streams likely include lending programs, card issuance, account management, and payment processing. The company maintains a medium size with a focus on regulatory adherence and customer-centric innovation. The website content and structured data suggest a well-established fintech entity with a clear market niche and growth potential.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS, exposing users to potential interception and data integrity risks. No modern TLS protocols are enabled, and critical security headers are missing, increasing vulnerability to common web attacks. The site lacks HSTS, OCSP stapling, and session resumption features, further weakening its defense. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published, indicating gaps in security governance and transparency. While no active vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE are detected, the fundamental lack of HTTPS is a critical issue that severely impacts the overall security rating and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site immediately.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and disable all insecure protocols such as SSL 2/3 and TLS 1.0/1.1.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives to enforce secure connections.
  4. Add essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  5. Deploy a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  6. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and preparedness.
  7. Optimize website performance to reduce load times and improve user experience, including image optimization and resource minification.
  8. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate emerging risks.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with custom fonts and Google Tag Manager for analytics. DNS is managed via Microsoft Azure DNS servers. The site lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS protocols, resulting in insecure HTTP-only access. Performance is poor with a load time exceeding 21 seconds and a large page size (~343 KB) with 29 resources. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO metadata is well implemented with Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. Accessibility features are basic but present. The technical debt includes missing security configurations and slow loading, which could impact business operations and user retention. Modernization efforts should focus on securing transport, improving performance, and enhancing privacy compliance.
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 ccbx.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 ccbx.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.