Skip to main content

Security report for etracker.de

etracker GmbH · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

etracker GmbH operates a privacy-focused web analytics platform positioned as a European alternative to Google Analytics, emphasizing GDPR compliance and data quality without data loss. The company offers a suite of services including analytics, consent management, tag management, consulting, and training, targeting marketers and enterprises seeking legally compliant analytics solutions. The website is professionally designed with excellent content quality and clear navigation, supporting multiple languages and rich media content. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with common plugins and libraries but suffers from slow load times and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which is a critical security concern. Security posture is basic with no security headers or DMARC records, though no active vulnerabilities were detected. Privacy compliance is strong, with detailed cookie consent mechanisms and clear privacy policies. Overall, the site demonstrates high business credibility but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of etracker.de. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 100 · Critical
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

3 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.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

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

Keep watching etracker.de

This scan found 16 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
50
Security headers
75
Email security
50
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
61

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 etracker.de, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
13
Employees
0
Customers
13
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
62%

4 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 etracker.de.

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

etracker holds a strong market position as a privacy-first analytics provider in the European technology sector, catering to businesses requiring GDPR-compliant data analytics. Its business model revolves around SaaS offerings with modular solutions for analytics, consent, and tag management. The company leverages partnerships and customer testimonials to build trust and expand its reach. The presence of consulting and academy services indicates a focus on customer education and support. The website's content and structure reflect a mature digital presence, though technical performance issues may impact user experience. The company appears medium-sized with a consistent brand identity and a clear focus on privacy and compliance as competitive advantages.

Security posture

The current security posture of the website is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate, which exposes users to potential data interception risks. The lack of security headers and missing DMARC records further weaken the site's defenses against common web threats and email spoofing. However, no critical vulnerabilities such as subdomain takeover or known SSL exploits were found. The site implements a robust consent management system aligned with GDPR requirements, indicating good privacy practices. Incident response and security policy documentation are not publicly available, which could hinder rapid response to security incidents. Overall, the site requires immediate remediation of SSL and header configurations to enhance security and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate supporting modern protocols (TLS 1.2/1.3) to secure all site traffic.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common attacks.
  3. Configure DMARC, SPF, and DKIM DNS records to protect against email spoofing and phishing.
  4. Optimize website performance to reduce load times, including resource minification and caching strategies.
  5. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users and partners to improve transparency and preparedness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing plugins such as WPForms for form handling and Yoast SEO for search engine optimization. JavaScript libraries like Lodash and jQuery are in use. The site loads a significant number of resources (122) and has a large page size (~378 KB), contributing to slow load times (~17 seconds). Preloading of key CSS, JS, and images is implemented for performance optimization. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility and SEO practices. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of security headers represent technical debt and security risks. DNS configuration lacks DNSSEC and CAA records, which could improve domain security. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified.
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. 84/100Low24 findingsView report
  2. 84/100 +1Low24 findingsView report
  3. 83/100 +16Low24 findingsView report
  4. 67/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with etracker.de. 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 etracker.de.

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.