Skip to main content

Security report for comply.org

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Comply.org is a technology-focused SaaS platform designed to help businesses easily demonstrate privacy compliance and responsible AI practices. The website positions itself as a tool for SaaS providers and organizations needing to showcase their adherence to privacy regulations. The business model centers around providing compliance demonstration services, likely targeting small to medium-sized enterprises in the technology sector. The site uses modern web technologies including React, Bootstrap, and Softr, indicating a contemporary technical infrastructure with moderate digital maturity. Mobile optimization is good, and the site loads with moderate performance. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and no visible vulnerabilities, but lacks advanced security headers and formal security policies. Privacy compliance is weak due to absence of privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. WHOIS data is incomplete and privacy protected, which limits trust but does not necessarily indicate malicious intent. Overall, the site is functional but would benefit from enhanced privacy disclosures, contact information, and security best practices to improve trust and compliance.

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

5 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 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

  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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching comply.org

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
72
Security headers
50
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
69

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 company operates in the technology sector, focusing on SaaS privacy compliance solutions. Its key services include privacy compliance demonstration and responsible AI practice validation. The target audience is SaaS businesses and organizations requiring privacy compliance evidence. The business model likely involves subscription or service fees for compliance tools. The website lacks detailed business information such as company history, size, or parent/subsidiary relationships, which limits deeper business intelligence. No partnerships or certifications are explicitly mentioned. The presence of Stripe integration suggests payment processing capabilities. The company appears to be a small entity with a focused niche offering. Growth indicators and market positioning are not clearly articulated on the site.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications, which is a fundamental security measure. However, it lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others that enhance protection against common web attacks. No security or incident response policies are published, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. No contact channels for security incidents or abuse are provided. The site does not expose sensitive data or use known vulnerable libraries. Overall, the security posture is basic and could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, formal policies, and incident response mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts and consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  4. Enhance website accessibility and SEO optimization to improve user experience and discoverability.
  5. Clarify business information on the website including company details, certifications, and trust indicators to boost credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Easily demonstrate privacy compliance and responsible AI practices.
Key services
Privacy compliance demonstration, Responsible AI practices demonstration
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 4.6.2, React, Softr, Stripe.js, jQuery
Frameworks
Bootstrap, React
Platforms
Softr
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sealmetrics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sealmetrics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain trust analysis.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No explicit contact information or security policies are present.
  5. Website uses modern frontend technologies and is mobile optimized.
  6. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  7. Limited business information and trust indicators reduce overall credibility.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern frontend technologies including React and Bootstrap 4.6.2, hosted on the Softr platform which provides CMS and portal capabilities. Stripe.js is integrated for payment processing, indicating e-commerce or subscription functionality. The site loads external resources from reputable CDNs and asset hosts. Performance is moderate with mobile optimization handled via responsive design and JavaScript adjustments. Accessibility features are basic but present. SEO is supported by meta tags and Open Graph data but lacks structured data like JSON-LD for enhanced search engine understanding. The site does not expose sensitive data or use deprecated libraries, but could benefit from improved security headers and privacy compliance features.
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 comply.org. 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 comply.org.

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.