Skip to main content

Security report for conductrics.com

Conductrics · 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

Conductrics is a technology company offering a unified customer experience platform that integrates A/B testing, machine learning predictions, and customer surveys to help enterprises optimize customer satisfaction and behavior. The website presents a professional and consistent brand image with clear navigation and relevant content targeting businesses seeking advanced experimentation tools. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies including Bootstrap and JavaScript libraries, with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy or recent registration status. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but lacking visible security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced security and compliance transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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 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 conductrics.com

This scan found 22 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
30
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention conductrics.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3
Employees
0
Customers
3
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

2 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for conductrics.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

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 positions itself as a niche provider in the experimentation and customer insights market, combining traditional A/B testing with surveys and machine learning to provide deeper understanding of customer attitudes and behaviors. Its SaaS business model targets enterprise clients looking for integrated solutions to optimize revenue and customer loyalty. The presence of a blog and support site indicates ongoing engagement with customers and thought leadership. Social media presence on Twitter and GitHub suggests a technology-focused audience. Lack of explicit company registration or contact emails limits full business credibility assessment.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS but lacks visible security headers such as Content Security Policy or HSTS, which are recommended for enhanced protection. Forms include client-side validation but no explicit security or privacy policies are linked. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. The absence of cookie consent mechanisms may pose compliance risks under GDPR or similar regulations. No known vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with standard best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner to comply with privacy regulations.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy, security, and incident response policies on the website.
  4. Create and link a terms of service page to clarify user agreements.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Conductrics
Description
Conductrics provides a unified customer experience platform integrating A/B and multivariate testing, surveys, and machine learning for enterprise-level experiments to optimize customer satisfaction, loyalty, and behavior.
Key services
A/B and multivariate testing, Machine learning audience predictions, Customer surveys including NPS
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, Google Fonts (Roboto), Clipboard.js, JavaScript, CSS, HTML5
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with validation

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

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 rich content and navigation
  2. No WHOIS data available indicating possible domain registration issues
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie consent mechanisms detected
  4. No visible security headers in HTML source
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly listed on main page
  6. Social media presence limited to Twitter and GitHub
  7. No terms of service page found
  8. Forms present for login and signup with validation but no visible security policy
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with Bootstrap for responsive design, Google Fonts for typography, and Clipboard.js for clipboard interactions. The HTML is well-structured with meta tags for SEO and Open Graph logo tags for social sharing. Performance is moderate with no obvious heavy scripts or resources. No CMS or hosting provider information is detectable from the HTML. The site is mobile optimized and includes client-side form validation. However, the lack of security headers and cookie consent mechanisms indicates some technical debt in security and compliance areas.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 65/100Medium32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with conductrics.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 conductrics.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.