Security report for doctena.com

Name: Dark-web exposure summary for doctena.com
Creator: OffSeq Breach

Doctena · Healthcare · Luxembourg

High risk. 18 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Doctena operates as a healthcare-focused online appointment booking and visibility platform targeting doctors and healthcare providers primarily in Luxembourg and surrounding regions. The company offers a comprehensive online agenda tool that enables 24/7 patient appointment booking, integrates with medical software, and provides local customer support. The website demonstrates a mature digital presence with multilingual support, professional branding, and extensive customer testimonials, positioning Doctena as a trusted partner in the healthcare sector with over 12 years of market presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Avada theme, enhanced with performance optimizations via WP Rocket, and integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools including HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, Matomo, and Facebook Pixel. The site is well-optimized for SEO and mobile responsiveness, with proper security headers and HTTPS enforced, reflecting a strong digital infrastructure. From a security perspective, the site employs best practices such as reCAPTCHA Enterprise for form protection and comprehensive security headers. However, the absence of explicit privacy and cookie policies, lack of visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, and missing WHOIS domain registration data introduce some trust and compliance concerns. These gaps suggest areas for improvement in transparency and regulatory adherence. Overall, Doctena presents a professional and trustworthy online platform with robust technical implementation and a clear business focus. Addressing privacy compliance and domain registration transparency would further enhance its security posture and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view: 65/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed: 7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
(b) Incident handling: One indicator
(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
(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

18 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

Network security
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Telnet
  Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: SMB
  Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL
  Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Oracle
  Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MySQL
  Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: RDP
  Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
  Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Redis
  Port 6379 (Redis) is publicly accessible - Redis - In-memory database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Redis using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB
  Port 27017 (MongoDB) is publicly accessible - MongoDB - NoSQL database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MongoDB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP
  Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
  What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC
  Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint
  What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS
  Port 139 (NetBIOS) is publicly accessible - NetBIOS - Windows file sharing
  What to do: Consider restricting access to NetBIOS or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch
  Port 9200 (Elasticsearch) is publicly accessible - Elasticsearch - Search engine
  What to do: Consider restricting access to Elasticsearch or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
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"
  References
  - CWE-1021
  - OWASP A06:2025
  - CAPEC-103
  - ASVS V3.4.6
  - OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
  - RFC 7034
- 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
  References
  - 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';…
GDPR outside view
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
- 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
  References
  - ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
- 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
  References
  - GDPR Art. 7
  - ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
  - NIST PT-4: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-4: Consent
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
  References
  - CWE-326
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-13: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-13: Cryptographic Protection

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

Keep watching doctena.com

This scan found 32 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: 30
Email security: 82
DNS health: 85
Network security: 0
GDPR outside view: 65
Average: 56
After the cap: 49

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 · found on this site
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 doctena.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records: 217
Employees: 0
Customers: 217
Third parties: 0
Weak passwords: 12%

6 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 doctena.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Open in Breach Monitor on Breach

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Doctena is positioned as a specialized service provider in the healthcare sector, focusing on appointment scheduling and visibility enhancement for medical professionals. Its business model revolves around SaaS offerings that streamline practice management and patient engagement. The company leverages partnerships with marketing and analytics platforms to optimize customer acquisition and retention. The presence of multilingual support and regional targeting indicates a strategic approach to market expansion in European healthcare markets. Testimonials and review metrics highlight strong customer satisfaction and brand trust. The lack of explicit company registration details and domain WHOIS data suggests a need for improved corporate transparency to support growth and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS enforcement, modern security headers, and integration of advanced bot protection via Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise. The use of secure third-party services for analytics and marketing is well-managed. However, the absence of published privacy policies, cookie consent mechanisms, and incident response contacts indicates gaps in compliance with GDPR and best security practices. The missing WHOIS data raises questions about domain registration transparency, which could impact trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Overall, the security posture is good but could be strengthened by enhancing privacy disclosures and incident management transparency.

Recommendations

Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy clearly accessible on the website to improve GDPR compliance.
Implement a visible cookie consent mechanism to inform users and obtain consent for tracking technologies.
Provide terms of service and security policy documents to enhance transparency and legal clarity.
Establish and publish incident response contact information and consider adding a security.txt file for vulnerability disclosure.
Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS domain registration data to improve domain trustworthiness and legitimacy.

Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company: Doctena
Description: Optimise your time management with Doctena's Online Agenda. Allow patients to book appointments 24/7. Increase your visibility and reduce no-shows.
Key services: Online appointment booking 24/7, Visibility tool for healthcare providers, Customer support, Integration with medical tools and software
Content quality: excellent
Branding: consistent

Technology

Stack: WordPress, Avada Theme, Yoast SEO Premium, WPML (multilingual plugin), HubSpot Forms, Google Tag Manager, Matomo Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, WP Rocket (performance optimization)
Frameworks: WordPress CMS
Platforms: Web
Performance: fast
Mobile: excellent
Accessibility: good
SEO: excellent

Security

Observed score

85/100

Good practices seen

HTTPS enforced
Use of reCAPTCHA Enterprise
Security headers present
No exposed sensitive data found
Secure forms with HubSpot integration

Analytics and tracking

Services: Matomo, Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager), HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level: extensive
Privacy practices: basic

Advertising

Ad networks: Google Ads (AW-11438894443), Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels: Facebook Pixel, Matomo Analytics
Marketing tools: HubSpot Marketing, CookieFirst Consent Management
Transparency: good

Site quality

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

Key observations

Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design
No WHOIS data available for domain, which is unusual for a commercial site
No explicit privacy or cookie policy pages found in the provided content
Multiple external marketing and analytics services integrated
Strong branding and consistent multilingual support via WPML
Contact available only via forms, no explicit email or phone numbers found
Security headers and HTTPS are properly configured
No signs of adult or questionable content
No visible security incident response or vulnerability disclosure information

Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature WordPress CMS platform using the Avada theme, enhanced with WP Rocket for performance optimization. It integrates multiple third-party services including HubSpot for forms and marketing automation, Matomo and Google Tag Manager for analytics, and Facebook Pixel for advertising. The site is multilingual via WPML, supporting various European languages and regions. Security is reinforced with HTTPS, security headers, and Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise. The site shows excellent mobile optimization, SEO best practices, and accessibility features. No technical errors or broken elements were detected in the content. Opportunities exist to improve privacy compliance and domain registration transparency to reduce technical and reputational 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.

OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Priority findings

Network security

Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

Critical Service Exposed: SMB

Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

Critical Service Exposed: RDP

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Redis

Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS

High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch

Security headers

Missing X-Frame-Options header

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

GDPR outside view

No Cookie Policy found

No Cookie Consent Banner found

SSL/TLS

Weak SSL Key Length

Keep watching doctena.com

Daily monitoring

Full report

Results by check

Security headers, 7 findings, score 30/100

SSL/TLS, 3 findings, score 75/100

Email security, 3 findings, score 82/100

DNS health, 2 findings, score 85/100

Network security, 14 findings, score 0/100

GDPR outside view, 3 findings, score 65/100

NIS2 outside view, Earlier method, rescan for details · not counted in the security score–