Skip to main content

Security report for comparenodes.com

CompareNodes.com · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CompareNodes.com is a specialized technology platform providing independent and transparent resources and tools for blockchain developers, focusing on Web3 infrastructure. The website offers directories of providers, protocols, and public endpoints, alongside RPC node benchmarking services and performance monitoring tools. It positions itself as an independent entity with partnerships such as the Decentralized Infrastructure Network led by Infura, targeting blockchain developers and infrastructure users. The business is relatively new, founded in 2022, and operates in a niche market segment with a small company size. Technically, the website is built on modern web technologies including React and Next.js, hosted on AWS infrastructure, and optimized for performance and mobile responsiveness. It employs Google Fonts and integrates Plausible Analytics for minimal user tracking. SEO and accessibility practices are well implemented, contributing to a professional user experience. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and has domain registration protections in place, but lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers. No public security or incident response policies are published, and no direct company contact emails or phone numbers are provided, relying instead on a Google Forms contact link. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the website presents a trustworthy and professional front with good content quality and technical implementation. However, improvements in security policies, contact transparency, and privacy compliance would enhance its security posture and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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 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 comparenodes.com

This scan found 23 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
66

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

CompareNodes.com operates in the blockchain technology sector, offering benchmarking and directory services for Web3 infrastructure providers and protocols. Its competitive advantage lies in its independent benchmarking role and comprehensive directories, supported by AI automation to maintain up-to-date data. The business model appears to be service and information provision, possibly monetizing through marketing amplification and private benchmarking results. The target customers are blockchain developers and infrastructure providers seeking performance insights. Growth indicators include recent blog updates and partnerships with recognized entities like Infura. The company maintains a professional online presence with consistent branding and active social media channels, though direct contact information is limited.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and domain registration protections active. However, the absence of DNSSEC, security headers, and published security or incident response policies indicates gaps in security best practices. The lack of direct security contact channels and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms reduces incident response readiness. Data protection practices are not explicitly detailed, and GDPR compliance is partial due to missing cookie consent mechanisms. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. Overall, the security posture is adequate for an informational website but requires enhancements to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive security and incident response policies, including dedicated contact channels.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve privacy compliance and user transparency.
  5. Provide direct company contact information including verified emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CompareNodes.com
Description
Independent and transparent resources & tools for blockchain developers
Key services
RPC node benchmarking as a service, Directories of providers, protocols, and public endpoints, Performance monitoring tools, Blog with industry resources
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, JavaScript, Google Fonts, k6 (benchmarking tool mentioned)
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
Plausible Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
plausible.io
Marketing tools
Google Fonts
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is rich, relevant, and professionally presented.
  3. Strong focus on blockchain infrastructure benchmarking and directories.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found; contact is via Google Forms link.
  5. No cookie consent banner or explicit cookie policy found.
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  7. Use of modern web technologies and good SEO practices.
  8. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Twitter, Medium.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using a modern React and Next.js framework, ensuring server-side rendering and good SEO performance. Hosting is on AWS, inferred from DNS servers, providing reliable infrastructure. The site uses Google Fonts for typography and integrates Plausible Analytics for privacy-focused user tracking. Performance is optimized with preloading and preconnecting resources, and the site is mobile responsive with good accessibility features. No CMS is detected, indicating a custom-built solution. Technical risks are minimal, but the absence of DNSSEC and security headers represents areas for improvement. Overall, the technical implementation supports a fast, accessible, and professional 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 comparenodes.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 comparenodes.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.