Clear Junction · Finance · United Kingdom
Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.
Clear Junction is a UK-based financial services company specializing in providing accounts and local payment rails for financial institutions. The company targets financial institutions and businesses requiring payment processing infrastructure, positioning itself as a key player in the payment rails market. The website reflects a professional and modern digital presence, built on WordPress with integrations of advanced analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, and HubSpot. The design is consistent and optimized for mobile, providing a good user experience and clear navigation. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and multiple security headers present, although explicit security policies and incident response information are not published. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with cookie consent mechanisms but lacks a dedicated privacy policy page. WHOIS data is consistent with the business claims, showing transparency and legitimacy. Overall, the website demonstrates a mature technical infrastructure and a credible business presence in the finance sector.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
The NIS2 figure counts only evidence anyone can see from the internet. 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.
2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
Observed on the first page load as a new visitor, before any consent choice; Guard does not click the banner. A consent mechanism is present (HubSpot cookie banner), but these analytics or marketing cookies were already set: LinkedIn (bcookie, lidc).
What to do: Configure the consent platform to block these tags until the visitor accepts the matching category.
Guard opened the site in a separate, fresh browser profile, refused consent ("Decline" button) as a visitor would, then reloaded the page. These analytics or marketing cookies were set after the refusal: LinkedIn (bcookie, lidc). Requests also went to LinkedIn Ads (px.ads.linkedin.com); HubSpot (app-eu1.hubspot.com); Microsoft Clarity (i.clarity.ms). Storing them after a refusal has no consent basis under ePrivacy Art. 5(3); the CNIL fined Yahoo EUR 10 million in December 2023 for advertising c…
What to do: Tie every tag to its consent category in the consent platform or tag manager so it stays blocked after a refusal, then repeat the check: reject, reload, and confirm no analytics or marketing cookies appear.
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 13 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention clearjunction.com, from OffSeq Breach.
3 subdomains affected
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for clearjunction.com.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with clearjunction.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review clearjunction.com.