Skip to main content

Security report for dotnice.com

dotNice International Limited · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

dotNice International Limited operates a professional website focused on brand protection, domain management, and brand enforcement services. The company targets businesses seeking to protect their digital brand assets and manage domain portfolios. The website demonstrates a solid market position within its niche, offering key services such as domain portfolio management, enterprise DNS infrastructure management, digital brand enforcement, and intellectual property consultancy. The site is multilingual, indicating an international audience reach. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern technologies including Bootstrap, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and Google Analytics. It employs Google reCAPTCHA for form security and a cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR principles. The site is mobile optimized and shows good SEO practices. However, some accessibility features could be improved. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with a good SSL configuration and uses reCAPTCHA to mitigate spam. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, and does not publish a security policy or incident response contact. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness. Overall, the website is professional and functional with moderate security and privacy compliance. The main risks stem from the missing domain registration data and lack of explicit privacy policy. Strategic improvements in security headers, privacy documentation, and domain legitimacy verification are recommended to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of dotnice.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

5 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. 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • 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

      • 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

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

Keep watching dotnice.com

This scan found 14 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
85
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
66

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 dotnice.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3
Employees
0
Customers
3
Third parties
0
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 dotnice.com.

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

dotNice International Limited operates in the technology sector, specializing in digital brand protection and domain management services. The company appears to have a small-sized operation with a focused business model targeting enterprises and organizations needing brand enforcement and domain recovery. The multilingual website and social media presence suggest an international client base. The company leverages partnerships with domain registries and legal aid services to provide comprehensive brand protection. Revenue streams likely include service fees for domain portfolio management, DNS infrastructure management, and legal consultancy. The company maintains a professional online presence but lacks visible certifications or extensive trust signals. Growth indicators include active content updates and multilingual support. The partnership ecosystem includes social media platforms and cookie consent providers, but no direct business partners or subsidiaries are identified.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and Google reCAPTCHA implemented to protect forms from spam and bots. The presence of a cookie consent banner indicates awareness of privacy regulations. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. No published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure mechanism is found, indicating gaps in security governance and transparency. The missing WHOIS data for the domain is a significant concern, potentially impacting trust and legitimacy. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Compliance with GDPR is partial due to the lack of a dedicated privacy policy page. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not evident from the website content.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy page clearly outlining data collection, processing, and user rights to improve GDPR compliance.
  3. Establish and publicize a security policy and incident response contact information to build trust and readiness for security incidents.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Verify and update domain registration information to ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available, improving domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
dotNice International Limited
Description
Brand protection, domain management, brand monitoring, brand reputation, domain name surveillance, brand enforcement, domain recovery
Key services
Domain name portfolio management, Enterprise DNS infrastructure management, Digital brand enforcement, Intellectual property consultancy and legal aid
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Bootstrap, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Google reCAPTCHA, CookieYes (Cookie Law Info plugin), WPML (multilingual plugin), Contact Form 7
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA for forms
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Leadlander
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads (implied via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking pixels
Leadlander (trackalyzer)
Marketing tools
CookieYes
Transparency
good

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. Professional design with clear navigation and multilingual support
  3. Uses modern web technologies and standard CMS (WordPress)
  4. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with granular controls
  5. No explicit privacy policy page found, which is a compliance gap
  6. WHOIS data is missing, raising concerns about domain registration legitimacy
  7. Contact information includes phone number and WhatsApp chat but no email addresses explicitly found
  8. Security headers are not detected, suggesting room for improvement
  9. SSL is properly configured with HTTPS enforced
  10. No visible security or incident response policies published
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using a custom theme with Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery for client-side scripting. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking and marketing analytics. The site uses Google reCAPTCHA to secure forms and CookieYes plugin for cookie consent management. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts and use of CDN-hosted resources. The site supports multiple languages via WPML plugin, indicating a mature internationalization strategy. Accessibility features are basic, with room for improvement in semantic markup and ARIA roles. SEO is well addressed with Yoast SEO plugin metadata and structured data in JSON-LD format. The technical stack is modern but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and performance optimizations.
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. 62/100Medium26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with dotnice.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 dotnice.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.