Skip to main content

Security report for duepharm.com

DUE Pharm · Healthcare · Latvia

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

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

DUE Pharm is a regulatory consulting company operating primarily in the Baltic States and surrounding regions, specializing in life sciences sectors including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, and nutraceuticals. The company offers a range of services such as distribution of food supplements, serialization, regulatory affairs, pharmacovigilance, and quality assurance. Their website reflects a professional and business-focused approach with clear service offerings and a mission to improve patient health through quality services. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using Elementor and Yoast SEO, with Google Analytics integrated for user tracking. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and uses HTTPS with proper SSL configuration, though it lacks some security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy, although the website content and social media presence support business credibility. Overall, the site presents a moderate security posture with room for improvement in privacy compliance and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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 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"

  2. 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

    • 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

  3. 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 duepharm.com

This scan found 25 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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
67

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

The company positions itself as a niche regulatory consulting provider in the healthcare and life sciences industry, targeting businesses requiring compliance and quality assurance services. Their business model focuses on consulting and distribution within regulated markets, primarily in the Baltic region but with ambitions to expand into other markets such as EAEU, CIS, GCC, and MENA. The website's content and social media links indicate active engagement with professional networks, enhancing their market presence. However, the lack of detailed company registration and contact information on the site limits transparency. The company leverages modern web technologies to maintain an effective digital presence but should enhance trust signals by publishing more comprehensive business and security information.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS with a good SSL configuration and uses Google Analytics with IP anonymization, indicating some attention to privacy. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces the overall security posture. No forms or input fields were detected on the homepage, minimizing immediate attack vectors, but the lack of a cookie consent mechanism and no visible incident response or security policies suggest gaps in compliance and readiness. The missing WHOIS data is a significant concern, as it impairs domain legitimacy verification. Overall, the security maturity is moderate, with recommendations to implement security headers, privacy compliance features, and publish incident response information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement essential HTTP security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish clear incident response and security policies to enhance transparency and preparedness.
  4. Obtain and display verifiable domain registration and company information to improve trustworthiness.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate potential risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
DUE Pharm
Description
DUE Pharm is a company based in the Baltic States operating in the life sciences industry comprising fields of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, biomedical technologies, nutraceuticals, cosmeceuticals, food processing and others. They provide distribution of food supplements and offer serialization, regulatory affairs, pharmacovigilance and quality assurance services for medicinal products, medical devices, food supplements, cosmetics, biocides, feed additives and premixtures.
Key services
Distribution of food supplements, Serialization, Regulatory affairs, Pharmacovigilance, Quality assurance
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Yoast SEO, Google Analytics
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • IP anonymization in Google Analytics

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
  3. Website uses modern WordPress CMS with Elementor and Yoast SEO.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on homepage.
  5. Privacy policy page exists but no cookie consent mechanism detected.
  6. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter is active.
  7. No visible security headers detected in provided data.
  8. SSL is enabled and configured properly.
  9. No forms detected on homepage; contact form likely on separate page.
  10. Content is professional and relevant to regulatory consulting in healthcare.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform using Elementor for page building and Yoast SEO for search engine optimization. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking and marketing purposes. The site is mobile-optimized and loads with moderate performance. No critical technical issues or broken elements were detected. However, the absence of security headers and cookie consent mechanisms indicates technical debt in security and privacy compliance. The WHOIS lookup failure suggests either a domain registration issue or privacy protection that should be clarified. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business needs but requires enhancements in security and compliance features.
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 duepharm.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 duepharm.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.