Skip to main content

Security report for decta.com

DECTA · Finance · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

DECTA operates as a full-stack payment platform specializing in B2B payment solutions tailored for merchants, fintechs, and banks. The company offers a broad range of services including payment acquiring, issuer and acquirer processing, digital banking platforms, and BIN sponsorship. Their market position is strengthened by multiple certifications such as EMI licenses in the UK, Cyprus, and Ireland, PCI DSS Level 1 compliance, and membership with Mastercard and Visa. The website reflects a professional and modern fintech company with a clear focus on innovation and global scalability. Technically, the website employs a modern technology stack with integrations of Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, and Osano for consent management. The site is well-optimized for mobile devices, has good accessibility features, and demonstrates solid SEO practices. Performance is moderate, with no critical technical issues detected. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and implements cookie consent mechanisms, but lacks explicit security headers and published security or incident response policies. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were identified in the HTML content. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable concern, potentially indicating privacy protection or data source limitations, which slightly reduces trustworthiness. Overall, DECTA presents as a credible fintech business with strong compliance and certification signals, a professional web presence, and moderate security posture. The main risk lies in the lack of publicly available domain registration data, which should be further investigated. Strategic recommendations include enhancing transparency around security policies, incident response, and domain registration details to improve trust and compliance.

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

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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

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

Keep watching decta.com

This scan found 18 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
62
Security headers
80
Email security
87
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
80

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

DECTA targets the fintech and banking sectors with a comprehensive suite of payment solutions designed for B2B clients. Their business model revolves around providing scalable, cloud-based payment infrastructure and white-label solutions that enable clients to launch digital banking and payment services quickly. The company leverages certifications and licenses to build trust and comply with regulatory requirements, positioning itself as a reliable partner in the global payments ecosystem. The website content and certifications suggest a medium-sized enterprise with ambitions for global reach. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers indicates a preference for controlled communication channels via web forms. The use of multiple analytics and marketing tools reflects a mature digital marketing strategy. The lack of WHOIS data is unusual and may warrant further due diligence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent mechanism in place, indicating awareness of privacy regulations such as GDPR. However, the absence of explicit security headers like X-Frame-Options and X-Content-Type-Options, and the lack of published security or incident response policies, represent gaps in transparency and security maturity. No vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The use of reputable third-party analytics and tracking services is balanced with a consent management platform, supporting privacy compliance. The missing WHOIS data raises questions about domain registration legitimacy, which is a security and trust concern. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved by publishing detailed security policies, incident response contacts, and implementing additional HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page detailing security practices and incident response procedures.
  2. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Content-Security-Policy.
  3. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  4. Clarify domain registration details and ensure WHOIS data is publicly available or justified by privacy protection policies.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize potential vulnerabilities and enhance privacy compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
DECTA
Description
DECTA is a full-stack payment platform enabling B2B payment solutions across various industries and multiple business scenarios. It equips merchants, fintechs, and banks for cashless payments with services including issuer and acquirer processing, digital banking platform, white-label payment gateway, and BIN sponsorship.
Key services
Payment Acquiring, White Label Payment Gateway, Digital Banking Platform, Acquirer Processing, Issuer Processing, White Label Card Issuing, BIN Sponsorship
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, Osano CMP
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of reputable analytics and tracking scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar
Marketing tools
Osano Consent Management Platform
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design
  2. Strong focus on payment processing and fintech solutions
  3. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy policy present
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found; contact via forms only
  5. Use of multiple reputable analytics and tracking services
  6. WHOIS data missing, which is unusual and warrants caution
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  8. Certifications and licenses prominently displayed, enhancing trust
  9. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end with responsive design and integrates multiple analytics and marketing technologies including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, and Osano CMP for cookie consent. The site is well-structured with proper meta tags and SEO optimizations. Performance is moderate, with no critical errors or broken elements detected. Accessibility features are present but could be further enhanced. The hosting provider and CMS are not explicitly identified. The technical stack supports scalability and global reach, aligning with the company's fintech service offerings. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and publish more comprehensive technical and security 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 decta.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 decta.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.