Skip to main content

Security report for complaintsboard.com

Complaints Board · Other · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Complaints Board is a consumer complaint and review platform established since 2004, providing a space for users to file complaints and share experiences about various companies and services. The website positions itself as a mediator for constructive conversations between consumers and businesses, offering free services without direct monetization visible in the content. Technically, the site uses modern JavaScript libraries such as Google Tag Manager and Sendinblue for marketing automation, along with Swiper.js for interactive UI elements. The site is mobile-optimized and SEO-friendly, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS usage implied but lacking explicit security headers and policies. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies and no visible consent mechanisms. The WHOIS data for the domain is missing, which raises concerns about domain registration legitimacy despite the website's apparent long-term operation and external trust signals. Overall, the site is functional and professional but requires improvements in privacy compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

3 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 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching complaintsboard.com

This scan found 19 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
75
Security headers
55
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
76

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

The platform targets consumers seeking to resolve disputes or share reviews about companies, positioning itself as a trusted consumer advocacy site. Its business model relies on user-generated content and possibly indirect revenue through marketing tools, though no direct monetization is evident. The site enjoys mentions in reputable media outlets, enhancing its credibility. However, the lack of clear company contact information and missing WHOIS data may affect trust. The platform operates in the 'Other' sector, focusing on consumer services rather than a traditional industry. Growth indicators include active complaint resolution and trending company reviews. The partnership ecosystem is limited to references within the site and external media mentions.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS usage but lacks visible security headers such as Content Security Policy or HSTS. No sensitive data exposure or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of privacy and cookie policies and no incident response contacts indicate compliance gaps, especially regarding GDPR and data protection regulations. The site does not provide a security policy or vulnerability disclosure program, limiting transparency. Incident response readiness appears minimal. Overall, the security culture could be improved by implementing standard security headers, privacy notices, and clear contact channels for security issues.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance security posture.
  3. Publish clear contact information including security incident response contacts and data protection officer details.
  4. Conduct regular audits of third-party scripts and marketing tools to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to improve domain legitimacy and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Complaints Board
Description
Complaints, reviews and helpful information regarding allegedly unethical companies and bad business practices.
Key services
Complaint filing, Consumer reviews, Business complaint resolution facilitation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Sendinblue marketing automation, Swiper.js for sliders, Service Workers (unregistered on load), CSS stylesheets, JavaScript for UI and autocomplete
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by canonical and og:url tags (https://)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sendinblue
Marketing tools
Sendinblue
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and interactive features
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found in the provided HTML
  3. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content
  4. Multiple reputable news mentions as trust signals
  5. Use of modern JavaScript libraries and marketing tools
  6. No signs of adult or NSFW content
  7. WHOIS data missing, indicating possible privacy protection or domain registration issues
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with Google Tag Manager and Sendinblue for marketing and analytics, and Swiper.js for UI components. The site is mobile-optimized and includes autocomplete search functionality. Service workers are present but unregistered on load, which may indicate legacy code or intentional disabling. Performance is moderate with preconnect and dns-prefetch hints for external domains. No CMS or hosting provider information is evident from the HTML. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic and could be enhanced. The absence of security headers and privacy policies indicates technical debt in compliance and security best practices.
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 complaintsboard.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 complaintsboard.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.