Skip to main content

Security report for cookiescan.com

CookieScan · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CookieScan is a technology-focused service provider specializing in helping website owners ensure their cookie disclosures comply with PECR and ePrivacy regulations. The website presents a professional and consistent brand image, targeting businesses and website operators who require compliance assistance. The technical infrastructure is based on WordPress CMS with Elementor and Astra theme, incorporating modern web technologies and Google Analytics for user tracking. The site is accessible and mobile-optimized, though some accessibility features are basic. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but lacks visible security headers and formal security policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness. Overall, the website serves its niche well but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 100 · Low
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 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. 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

  3. 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 cookiescan.com

This scan found 21 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
95
Average
58

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

CookieScan operates in the niche market of cookie compliance services, addressing regulatory requirements for website cookie disclosures. Its business model revolves around providing scanning and compliance tools or consultancy to website owners. The company appears small and focused, with no public parent or subsidiary relationships. The use of structured data and SEO optimization indicates an intent to attract organic traffic from compliance-conscious clients. The lack of explicit contact details and privacy documentation may limit trust among potential customers. The presence of Google Analytics and Tag Manager suggests moderate user tracking for business insights. No partnerships or extended ecosystem domains were identified.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS, which is a fundamental security requirement. However, it lacks visible security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, or HSTS, which could improve 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 WHOIS data and registrant information reduces trust and may indicate privacy protection or domain registration issues. Forms on the site are present but no explicit security measures or data protection officer contacts are found. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with better transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance web security.
  3. Publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure information to build trust and readiness.
  4. Provide clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers for support and security issues.
  5. Investigate and clarify domain WHOIS registration details to improve legitimacy and trust signals.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CookieScan
Description
We help you ensure your website cookie disclosure is fully PECR and ePrivacy compliant
Key services
cookie disclosure compliance, PECR and ePrivacy compliance assistance
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Astra Theme, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, FontAwesome, jQuery
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of CSP or security headers not detected

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with full content
  2. No WHOIS data available indicating possible privacy protection or unregistered domain
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in content
  5. Uses modern WordPress CMS with Elementor and Astra theme
  6. Includes Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking
  7. No visible security policy or incident response info
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
  9. Content is focused on cookie compliance services
  10. No adult or questionable content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder and Astra theme, indicating a flexible and widely supported platform. It integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for analytics and tracking. The site loads external resources from reputable domains such as Google Fonts and FontAwesome. Performance is moderate with no major issues detected, and mobile optimization is good. Accessibility is basic but could be enhanced. No major technical debt or deprecated libraries were detected. The site lacks advanced security headers and formal security documentation, which are areas for improvement. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified from the content.
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. 55/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with cookiescan.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 cookiescan.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.