Skip to main content

Security report for crosscountry-consulting.com

CrossCountry Consulting · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CrossCountry Consulting is a professional services firm specializing in integrated solutions for finance leaders including CFOs, private equity sponsors, and corporate functional leaders. The company offers services in accounting and risk management, technology-enabled transformation, and transaction advisory. Their market position is supported by strategic alliances with well-known technology partners such as NetSuite, Coupa, and Workday. The website demonstrates a high level of professionalism with comprehensive content and strong branding consistency. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern libraries and good SEO practices, though some security headers are missing. The security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, but could be improved with additional headers and incident response information. Privacy compliance is good with clear privacy and cookie policies, though a cookie consent mechanism is absent. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable, which raises moderate concerns about domain legitimacy, but the website content and external trust signals mitigate this risk. Overall, the site is well-positioned for its target audience with a strong digital presence and professional credibility.

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

6 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. 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 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 crosscountry-consulting.com

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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
62

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 targets finance and corporate leadership sectors, providing consulting services that address complex regulatory, technological, and transactional challenges. Their business model focuses on delivering tailored solutions that integrate technology and finance transformation. The presence of strategic alliances with major technology providers enhances their competitive advantage and service offerings. The website content and testimonials indicate a client-centric approach and a culture of mentorship and inclusion. The firm appears to be large and established, with multiple industry sectors served including finance, technology, real estate, government, and energy. The lack of WHOIS transparency is a notable gap but does not currently undermine the business intelligence derived from the site content and partnerships.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and avoids exposing sensitive data in its HTML content. However, it lacks several important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security which are recommended to enhance protection against common web attacks. No incident response or security contact information is provided, which limits the ability to report or respond to security incidents effectively. The absence of a cookie consent mechanism may present compliance risks under GDPR and other privacy regulations. No vulnerable or outdated libraries were detected in the source scripts. Overall, the security posture is good but could be significantly improved with additional security best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and configure security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen web security.
  2. Add a visible incident response or security contact page/email to facilitate reporting and handling of security issues.
  3. Deploy a cookie consent banner or mechanism to ensure compliance with GDPR and other privacy laws.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate risks from vulnerable libraries.
  5. Consider publishing domain registration details or using verified WHOIS information to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CrossCountry Consulting
Description
Integrated solutions for the office of the CFO, private equity sponsors, and other corporate leaders to solve today’s challenges and unlock tomorrow’s success.
Key services
Accounting & Risk, Technology-Enabled Transformation, Transactions, Strategic Alliances with technology partners
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Slick Carousel, Google Fonts (Montserrat), SEO Framework plugin
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for an established consulting firm.
  3. No visible security headers detected in HTML source.
  4. No explicit phone numbers found, only email contact in footer.
  5. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite cookie policy presence.
  6. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, and Glassdoor.
  7. Multiple strategic alliance partner links present.
  8. No visible analytics or tracking scripts detected in source.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using modern front-end technologies such as jQuery and Slick Carousel for interactive elements. Google Fonts are used for typography, and SEO Framework plugin is employed for SEO optimization. The site loads external resources from trusted CDNs and social media platforms. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. The site structure is clear and navigation is user-friendly. There is no evidence of heavy analytics or tracking scripts, indicating a privacy-conscious approach. Hosting provider details are not explicitly available from the source. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and responsive user experience with room for security enhancements.
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 crosscountry-consulting.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 crosscountry-consulting.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.