Skip to main content

Security report for clearscore.com

Other

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

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.clearscore.com is currently inaccessible due to a Web Application Firewall (WAF) security challenge implemented by PerimeterX, which blocks direct access to the content. This prevents any meaningful extraction of business, technical, or security information from the site. The WHOIS lookup for the domain failed, returning no registration data, which raises concerns about the domain's registration status or the presence of privacy protections or restrictions on WHOIS data access. Due to these factors, the overall risk assessment is elevated, and the site cannot be fully trusted or analyzed at this time. From a technical perspective, the presence of PerimeterX indicates an advanced security posture aimed at mitigating automated threats and bots. However, the lack of accessible content and metadata limits the ability to assess the site's infrastructure, performance, or compliance with privacy regulations. No security headers or SSL configuration details were available for review. Security posture evaluation is constrained by the lack of accessible data. While the use of a WAF is a positive security control, the absence of visible security policies, contact information, or incident response channels reduces transparency and trustworthiness. The domain's WHOIS data absence further complicates legitimacy verification. Overall, the site is currently in a blocked state, preventing comprehensive analysis. It is recommended to gain authorized access or whitelist analysis IPs to perform a full security and compliance assessment. Until then, the site should be treated with caution due to the lack of verifiable information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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 clearscore.com

This scan found 17 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
100
Security headers
35
Email security
95
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
74

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 blocked nature of the website and absence of accessible content, no reliable business intelligence data could be extracted. The domain WHOIS data is missing, which prevents verification of company registration, ownership, or operational history. No information about market positioning, business model, revenue streams, or partnerships is available. The presence of PerimeterX suggests the business values security, but without content, no further insights into competitive advantages or customer segments can be provided.

Security posture

The security posture is partially observable through the presence of PerimeterX WAF, indicating a proactive approach to mitigating automated attacks and bot traffic. However, the lack of accessible security headers, SSL/TLS configuration details, and absence of published security policies or incident response contacts limits the assessment. The missing WHOIS data is a significant concern for domain legitimacy and trust. No vulnerabilities or compliance gaps can be identified due to blocked content. Overall, the security maturity level cannot be fully determined but shows some advanced controls in place.

Recommendations

  1. Enable controlled access or provide analysis IP whitelisting to bypass WAF for security assessments.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible without security challenges.
  3. Ensure WHOIS domain registration data is publicly available or provide verified registrant information to improve trust.
  4. Implement and expose security headers and SSL/TLS best practices for improved security posture.
  5. Provide visible contact and incident response information to enhance transparency and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page content is a security challenge with PerimeterX captcha blocking access, indicating WAF or bot protection. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
PerimeterX

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by PerimeterX WAF security challenge.
  2. No meaningful website content is accessible for analysis.
  3. No metadata, forms, or contact information found in the HTML.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  5. No security headers or SSL information available from provided data.
  6. External domains are limited to CDN and captcha service domains.
  7. WHOIS data is unavailable or domain is unregistered, raising legitimacy concerns.
Technical notes

Notes

The technical infrastructure includes PerimeterX as a security layer, which is a modern bot mitigation and WAF solution. The site uses CDN domains for static content delivery and Google Fonts for typography. No CMS or backend frameworks could be identified due to blocked content. Performance, accessibility, and SEO optimizations cannot be evaluated. The site currently suffers from complete content inaccessibility, which is a critical technical limitation for analysis and user experience.
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 clearscore.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 clearscore.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.