Skip to main content

Security report for centresuite.com

Other · N/a

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

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.centresuite.com appears to be a secure login portal primarily designed for user authentication. It lacks publicly visible business descriptions or contact information on the landing page, focusing solely on credential input. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable, which raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy. The site uses modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Modernizr, and integrates Google Tag Manager and SiteCatalyst for analytics, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. However, the absence of security headers and cookie consent mechanisms suggests room for improvement in security posture and privacy compliance. Overall, the site is functional but minimalistic, with basic content quality and moderate technical implementation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
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 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

  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

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

Keep watching centresuite.com

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
55
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
71

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 lack of explicit business information and WHOIS data, the market positioning and business model are unclear. The site likely serves as an enterprise or organizational portal for authenticated users rather than a public-facing commercial site. The presence of links to privacy policy and terms hosted on related domains suggests affiliation with a larger payment or financial services provider (TSYS). The absence of contact details and certifications limits trust signals. The business appears to target existing customers or employees requiring secure access rather than new clients. Growth indicators and partnership ecosystems cannot be determined from the available data.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate but incomplete. The site uses HTTPS (implied by external Google Tag Manager scripts loaded over HTTPS), includes CSRF tokens in forms, and enforces input validation on password fields. However, no security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options were detected, which are important for mitigating common web attacks. There is no visible incident response or security policy information, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file was found. The lack of cookie consent and privacy compliance mechanisms also indicates gaps in regulatory adherence. No obvious vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen defense against web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and privacy compliance mechanisms to meet GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve usability for all users, including those with disabilities.
  5. Improve SEO by adding structured data, meta descriptions, and richer content to support discoverability and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Modernizr, Google Tag Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • CSRF token in forms
  • Password input with validation regex

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, SiteCatalyst
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a login portal requiring user credentials
  2. No WHOIS data available indicating possible unregistered or private domain
  3. Privacy and terms policies are linked externally or on subpages
  4. No contact information or business details visible on the login page
  5. Uses Google Tag Manager and SiteCatalyst for analytics
  6. No visible security headers or advanced security features detected
  7. No cookie consent mechanism found
  8. Content is minimal and focused on authentication
  9. No adult or explicit content detected
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs a standard modern JavaScript stack including jQuery and Modernizr for feature detection and compatibility. Google Tag Manager and SiteCatalyst are used for analytics and tracking, indicating integration with enterprise marketing tools. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design elements and basic accessibility features. The HTML structure is valid and includes CSRF tokens for form security. However, the absence of a detected CMS or hosting provider limits insight into backend infrastructure. Performance appears moderate based on script usage and page complexity. There is an opportunity to modernize further by adopting advanced frameworks and improving SEO and accessibility 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 centresuite.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 centresuite.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.