Skip to main content

Security report for datanyze.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.datanyze.com is currently inaccessible due to a PerimeterX security challenge page blocking access. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot mitigation system preventing automated or suspicious traffic from viewing the actual website content. As a result, no direct information about the company's business, services, or policies can be extracted from the page. The only visible element is a security captcha script and a logo image URL. Without access to the real content, a comprehensive analysis of business operations, technical infrastructure, or security posture is not possible. From the technical perspective, the site employs PerimeterX for bot protection, which is a recognized security technology. However, no further details on hosting, CMS, or frameworks can be determined. The lack of visible metadata, forms, or contact information limits the ability to assess privacy compliance or user experience. Security-wise, the presence of a WAF is a positive indicator of proactive defense, but the inability to access the site content prevents evaluation of security headers, SSL configuration, or vulnerability exposure. No privacy policies, cookie banners, or terms of service are detectable, which may be present on the actual site but are inaccessible due to the block. Overall, the site is currently rated low in accessibility and content quality due to the block. For a full security and compliance assessment, access to the unblocked site content is necessary. Strategic recommendations include ensuring that legitimate users can access the site without undue friction and providing clear privacy and security documentation once accessible.

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

8 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 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

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching datanyze.com

This scan found 20 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
15
Email security
73
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
65

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 datanyze.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
5,615
Employees
2
Customers
5,611
Third parties
2
Weak passwords
6%

Latest record dated 2025-10-22 · 4 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 datanyze.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –datanyze.com2025-10-22
  • –www.datanyze.com2025-09-17

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Due to the WAF block, no direct business intelligence data can be extracted from the site content. The domain name suggests a technology company possibly involved in data analytics or market intelligence, but no explicit business model, market position, or service details are available. No contact information, social media links, or partner domains are visible. The use of PerimeterX indicates a concern for security and bot mitigation, which is common in technology firms handling sensitive or proprietary data. Without further data, no conclusions on revenue streams, customer segments, or partnerships can be drawn.

Security posture

The security posture assessment is limited by the lack of accessible content. The presence of PerimeterX WAF indicates an advanced security control to prevent automated attacks and scraping. However, no information on SSL/TLS configuration, HTTP security headers, or vulnerability disclosures is available. No incident response contacts or security policies are found. The site appears to rely heavily on perimeter defense but lacks visible transparency on security practices. This limits trust and compliance evaluation. The domain uses privacy protection for WHOIS data, which is typical but reduces transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Improve user accessibility by tuning WAF settings to reduce false positives and allow legitimate traffic.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible without security challenges.
  3. Expose security and incident response contact information to enhance trust and compliance.
  4. Implement SEO and accessibility best practices to improve site usability and search engine ranking.
  5. Provide transparency on data protection and compliance certifications to strengthen business credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page content is a security challenge with PerimeterX captcha blocking access, indicating WAF or bot protection. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
PerimeterX

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by PerimeterX security challenge.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or user input fields detected.
  5. No social media or external business links detected except for assets and captcha domains.
  6. No SEO or accessibility metadata present.
  7. No security headers or SSL details available from provided data.
  8. Content safety is rated safe as no adult or explicit content is present.
  9. Analysis incomplete due to WAF/security mechanisms. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com
Technical notes

Notes

The technical analysis is constrained by the WAF block. The site uses PerimeterX for bot mitigation, which is a modern security technology. No CMS, frameworks, or hosting details are discernible. The HTML content is minimal and focused on loading captcha scripts. No performance or mobile optimization data is available. The site lacks metadata and structured data for SEO. The use of external domains is limited to assets and captcha services. Technical risks include potential user experience degradation due to aggressive bot blocking and lack of visible fallback 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. 64/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with datanyze.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 datanyze.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.