Skip to main content

Security report for crosby.us

Crosby Studio · Media · United States

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Crosby Studio is a small, New York City-based brand studio established in 2017, specializing in building brands from scratch or re-scratching them and telling their stories on social media platforms. The website presents a professional and modern digital presence using Webflow CMS, Lottie animations, and Google reCAPTCHA for form security. While the site is well-designed and optimized for mobile, it lacks explicit privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, which impacts its privacy compliance score. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and security headers properly configured, but incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are absent. Overall, the website is legitimate and trustworthy based on content and technical implementation, though the absence of WHOIS data and direct contact details slightly reduce trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

9 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 crosby.us

This scan found 27 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
47
Security headers
30
Email security
50
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
57

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 media sector, targeting brands and businesses seeking social media branding and storytelling services. Its business model focuses on creative brand building and social media narrative development. The market position is that of a niche, boutique agency with a clear focus on quality and storytelling. The lack of publicly available WHOIS data suggests privacy protection, which is common for small creative agencies. The website's ecosystem includes modern marketing tools but no visible partnerships or subsidiaries. Growth indicators are limited due to minimal external references and contact information.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, presence of key security headers, and use of Google reCAPTCHA to protect forms from abuse. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of a security policy, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates gaps in comprehensive security governance and transparency. GDPR compliance indicators are weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is secure but could improve transparency and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add direct company contact emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility and user support.
  3. Implement a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure page to facilitate responsible security reporting.
  4. Provide incident response contact information to demonstrate preparedness and transparency.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and SEO performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Crosby Studio
Description
We build brands from scratch, or re-scratch, and tell their stories on social. Est. 2017, New York City.
Key services
Brand building, Social media storytelling
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow, Google reCAPTCHA, Lottie animations, JavaScript
Frameworks
Webflow
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Marketing tools
reb2b
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data unavailable, indicating privacy protection or registry data issue
  2. Website is a small NYC-based brand studio established in 2017
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages found
  4. Contact available only via form, no direct emails or phone numbers found
  5. Uses modern web technologies and animations
  6. Good HTTPS and security headers present
  7. No signs of malicious or adult content
  8. Limited transparency on data protection and incident response
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Webflow CMS with modern front-end technologies including Lottie animations and asynchronous JavaScript loading. It uses Google reCAPTCHA for form protection and loads assets from reputable CDNs. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Hosting is via Webflow, which provides reliable infrastructure and SSL certificates. There is room for improvement in accessibility and privacy compliance documentation.
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 crosby.us. 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 crosby.us.

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.