Skip to main content

Security report for collegeathletepaymentsystem.com

College Athlete Payment System (CAPS) · Education · United States

Partial score · DNS & email only

55/100

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

The College Athlete Payment System (CAPS) website presents a specialized software platform designed to facilitate compliance with new NCAA revenue sharing rules effective July 1, 2025. The platform is developed in partnership with the College Sports Commission and LBi Software, targeting colleges, universities, and student-athletes in the United States. CAPS offers services including cap fund allocation, payment monitoring, compliance management, and educational resources to ensure institutions meet regulatory requirements. The website content is professional and well-structured, reflecting a focused business model in the education sector.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching collegeathletepaymentsystem.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
85
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
55

Not counted

  • Security headers: 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

CAPS occupies a niche market addressing the emerging need for managing direct payments to college athletes under new revenue sharing regulations. Its competitive advantage lies in its official partnership with the College Sports Commission and LBi Software, lending credibility and domain expertise. The business model revolves around providing a SaaS platform to educational institutions, with revenue likely derived from licensing or service fees. The target customers are NCAA member institutions and their athletic departments. The presence of sandbox and production environments indicates a mature development lifecycle. The partnership ecosystem is strong, but the lack of direct contact emails or phone numbers may limit immediate customer engagement.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 on its contact form, demonstrating basic security hygiene. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and DNSSEC for the domain reduces the overall security posture. No incident response or security policy information is published, which is a gap for compliance and trust. The WHOIS data anomaly with a future creation date raises questions about domain legitimacy, though the business partnerships mitigate some concerns. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be improved with enhanced DNS security, security headers, and published policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and trust.
  2. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Add incident response and security contact information to demonstrate preparedness.
  5. Review and correct WHOIS data to reflect accurate domain registration details.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
College Athlete Payment System (CAPS)
Description
The College Sports Commission and LBi Software have developed a comprehensive cap management system known as the College Athlete Payment System (CAPS).
Key services
Cap fund allocation to student-athletes, Payment monitoring and tracking, Compliance management with revenue sharing rules, Roster allocation tracking, Education and training on revenue sharing rules
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.2, jQuery 3.7.1, Formidable Forms plugin, Beaver Builder plugin, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Google Fonts (Manrope), AWS Route 53 DNS
Frameworks
WordPress CMS
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA v3 on contact form
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. Contact is only via a web form; no email or phone contact details provided.
  4. Site uses WordPress CMS with Beaver Builder and Formidable Forms plugins.
  5. Google reCAPTCHA v3 is implemented on the contact form for spam protection.
  6. No social media links or company emails found.
  7. Site content is focused on a new NCAA revenue sharing system launching in 2025.
  8. No explicit security headers detected in the HTML content.
  9. DNSSEC is not enabled for the domain.
  10. WHOIS data shows suspicious future creation date.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.2 with Beaver Builder and Formidable Forms plugins, indicating a modern CMS-based infrastructure. It uses jQuery 3.7.1 and Google Fonts for UI styling. Hosting appears to be on AWS infrastructure, given the Amazon Registrar and AWS DNS servers. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. SEO is supported by proper meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. The contact form uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 for spam protection. Technical risks include lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers, which should be addressed to reduce attack surface and improve 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 collegeathletepaymentsystem.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 collegeathletepaymentsystem.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.