Skip to main content

Security report for cside.dev

c/side · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

86/100

Risk levelLow

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

c/side is a specialized cybersecurity company focused on monitoring, securing, and optimizing third-party client-side scripts to prevent data breaches and ensure PCI DSS compliance. Their market position is that of a niche provider addressing the risks posed by third-party scripts, including Magecart and supply chain attacks. The website demonstrates a professional and consistent brand presence, targeting ecommerce and web platform owners concerned with client-side security. Technically, the site is built on modern frameworks such as Next.js and React, integrating multiple analytics and marketing tools including HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, and Stripe for payments. Performance and mobile optimization are good, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and error monitoring via Sentry, but lacks explicit security headers and published security policies. Privacy compliance is weak, with no visible privacy or cookie policies or consent mechanisms. No direct contact or incident response information is provided, which could impact trust and compliance. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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

2 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 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 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 cside.dev

This scan found 10 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
75
Email security
87
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
86

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 cside.dev, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
5
Employees
0
Customers
4
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
0%

1 subdomain 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 cside.dev.

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 operates a SaaS model providing real-time monitoring and optimization of third-party scripts, a critical area in web security. Their competitive advantage lies in AI-driven detection of script-based attacks and compliance with PCI DSS 4.0 mandates. The target customers are ecommerce platforms and enterprises handling cardholder data. The company is featured in reputable media outlets and participates in industry events like BlackHat USA, indicating active market engagement. Revenue streams likely include subscription fees for their monitoring service. The partnership ecosystem includes integrations with popular ecommerce platforms like Shopify, Magento, and WooCommerce. Strategic observations suggest a focus on expanding detection capabilities and enhancing user trust through transparency and compliance.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses modern security tools such as Sentry for error tracking and Stripe for secure payments. However, it lacks visible security headers like Content-Security-Policy and does not publish a security policy or incident response contacts, which are important for transparency and compliance. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present, limiting external reporting of security issues. The extensive use of third-party tracking and marketing scripts increases the attack surface and raises privacy concerns. The absence of privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms indicates gaps in GDPR and privacy compliance. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be improved by adopting best practices in security headers, policy disclosures, and privacy compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR-compliant consent mechanisms.
  2. Implement and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Provide clear contact information for security incidents and establish a vulnerability disclosure program including a security.txt file.
  4. Reduce reliance on extensive third-party tracking or provide transparent user controls to enhance privacy compliance.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and provide detailed documentation on data retention and user data handling.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
c/side
Description
Protect your website from third-party script attacks with c/side. Monitor, secure, and optimize client-side JavaScript to prevent data breaches and ensure PCI DSS compliance.
Key services
Monitoring 3rd party scripts, Securing client-side JavaScript, Optimizing script performance, Detection of Magecart and supply chain attacks
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Next.js, React, Stripe, Google Tag Manager, HubSpot, AthenaHQ, Sentry
Frameworks
Next.js
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Sentry for error monitoring
  • Use of Stripe for payments

Analytics and tracking

Services
HubSpot Analytics, Google Analytics (via GTM), LinkedIn Insight Tag, AthenaHQ
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
HubSpot Ads, Twitter Ads
Tracking pixels
HubSpot Analytics, LinkedIn Pixel, AthenaHQ Tracking, G2 Tracking
Marketing tools
HubSpot, AthenaHQ
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the main page.
  3. Strong focus on client-side script security and PCI DSS compliance.
  4. Use of multiple third-party marketing and analytics tools with extensive user tracking.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the provided content.
  6. Professional design and consistent branding with clear business focus.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  8. No incident response or security contact information provided.
  9. No certifications explicitly mentioned on the site.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Next.js and React stack, leveraging server-side rendering and static generation for performance. It integrates multiple third-party services for analytics, marketing, and payments, including HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, AthenaHQ, Stripe, and Sentry. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good SEO meta tags. Performance is moderate, with some preloading of fonts and images. There is no indication of CMS usage, suggesting a custom-built solution. Hosting provider details are not explicit. Technical risks include the extensive use of third-party scripts which may introduce vulnerabilities or privacy issues if not properly managed. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and privacy disclosures to reduce technical debt and compliance risks.
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 cside.dev. 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 cside.dev.

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.