Skip to main content

Security report for eexchanger.co

Finance · 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

The website eexchanger.co operates as an online currency exchange platform specializing in electronic currencies and cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. It targets individuals and businesses seeking safe and convenient currency exchange services online. The platform's market position appears to be niche with a basic but functional service offering. Technically, the site employs a modern tech stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, and various UI libraries, alongside marketing and tracking tools like Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel. Mobile optimization is adequate, though accessibility and SEO are basic. Security posture shows HTTPS usage but lacks visible security headers and explicit security policies, which could be improved. Privacy compliance is weak due to absence of explicit privacy and terms of service pages and no clear cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is functional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security measures.

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

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"

    • 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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 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

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching eexchanger.co

This scan found 23 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
20
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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 eexchanger.co, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
42
Employees
0
Customers
42
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 eexchanger.co.

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

Eexchanger.co operates in the finance sector as an online currency exchange service. Its business model revolves around facilitating electronic and cryptocurrency exchanges. The platform likely generates revenue through exchange fees or spreads. The target audience includes crypto users and electronic currency holders. The site uses third-party chat and tracking services to engage users and monitor activity. The lack of detailed company information and privacy policies suggests a small-sized operation with limited public-facing corporate transparency. No partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the data. The business appears to be focused on providing a straightforward exchange service rather than a broad financial ecosystem.

Security posture

The security maturity of eexchanger.co is moderate. The site uses HTTPS, which is mandatory for financial transactions, but lacks important HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS. No explicit incident response or security policies are published. The use of multiple third-party scripts introduces potential risk vectors, especially without visible CSP or script integrity checks. Forms are present via chat widgets but no explicit CSRF or input validation mechanisms are visible. Privacy compliance is weak, increasing regulatory risk. Overall, the site should enhance its security controls, publish clear policies, and implement best practices to reduce vulnerabilities and increase user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve transparency and compliance.
  2. Add and enforce HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Introduce a clear cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Conduct a security audit of third-party scripts and implement script integrity checks.
  5. Publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to demonstrate security readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Internet currency exchanger. Online electronic currency exchange. Safe currency exchange
Key services
Currency exchange, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash transactions, Electronic currency exchange
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, Google Fonts, Font Awesome, Ionicons, Flaticon, Owl Carousel, Magnific Popup, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Binotel Chat Widget
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by URL (https://eexchanger.co)
  • Use of Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel with async loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel, Binotel Chat Widget
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no WAF blocking
  2. No explicit privacy or terms of service pages found
  3. Cookie policy implied but no explicit consent mechanism
  4. Contact information only via chat widget, no emails or phone numbers explicitly found
  5. Use of multiple third-party tracking and chat services
  6. No visible security headers or advanced security policies
  7. Content and design are basic but functional
  8. WHOIS data is privacy protected, limiting transparency
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a Bootstrap framework with common front-end libraries such as jQuery, Font Awesome, and Owl Carousel. It integrates Google Fonts and uses Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. The site includes a third-party chat widget from Binotel. Performance appears moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are minimal. SEO is basic with meta keywords and description but no advanced structured data or Open Graph tags detected. Hosting provider and CMS are not explicitly identified. The site would benefit from modernization in accessibility and SEO practices and improved security configurations.
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 eexchanger.co. 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 eexchanger.co.

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.