Skip to main content

Security report for etransfer.com

EFT Corporation · Non-profit · United States

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

EFT Corporation is a well-established payment processing company specializing in electronic funds transfer and donation solutions for non-profits, churches, schools, and businesses. Founded in 1979, it holds a strong market position with decades of experience and recognition from industry bodies such as the American Fundraising Professionals. The company offers a comprehensive suite of services including ACH/EFT, credit and debit card processing, virtual terminals, and email marketing, positioning itself as a one-stop shop for electronic money processing needs. Technically, the website employs modern front-end technologies such as Bootstrap, jQuery, and Owl Carousel, and is hosted on Microsoft Azure DNS infrastructure. The site is mobile-optimized and includes standard tracking tools like Google Analytics and Facebook Pixel, alongside a cookie consent mechanism. However, there is room for improvement in security practices, notably the absence of DNSSEC and HTTP security headers, and lack of published security policies. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and claims PCI compliance, which is critical for payment processing. The absence of explicit security headers and incident response information suggests moderate security maturity. No critical vulnerabilities or blocking mechanisms were detected, indicating a generally secure posture but with opportunities for enhancement. Overall, EFT Corporation's website reflects a credible and professional business with good content quality and user experience. Strategic improvements in security headers, DNS security, and transparency around security policies would further strengthen trust and compliance posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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. 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"

    • 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. 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 etransfer.com

This scan found 20 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
82
Security headers
30
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
74

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

EFT Corporation operates in the niche market of electronic payment processing with a focus on non-profits and related sectors. Its long history and recognition by professional fundraising organizations provide competitive advantages and market credibility. The business model centers on providing integrated payment solutions that cater to various client segments including churches, schools, and businesses. Revenue streams likely include transaction fees, service subscriptions, and value-added services like email marketing. The company maintains a partnership ecosystem with payment networks and uses third-party advertising and analytics platforms. Growth indicators include a diverse client base and continuous service enhancements such as weekly transaction frequency. The company’s operations are supported by a management team with deep industry expertise, reinforcing strategic stability and market trust.

Security posture

The security posture of EFT Corporation is moderate. The website enforces HTTPS and claims PCI compliance, essential for handling sensitive payment data. However, the lack of DNSSEC and missing HTTP security headers such as Content Security Policy and HSTS reduce the overall security robustness. There is no publicly available security policy or incident response contact, which limits transparency and preparedness for security incidents. The use of third-party scripts and tracking pixels introduces potential risk vectors that require ongoing monitoring. Overall, the company demonstrates awareness of security best practices but should enhance its security framework and communication to meet higher compliance standards such as GDPR and NIS2.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement comprehensive HTTP security headers including Content Security Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a detailed security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Conduct regular security audits of third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by updating privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR and data retention practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
EFT Corporation
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
EFT Corporation
Description
EFT Corporation provides online giving and payment solutions including credit card, debit card, ACH/EFT, and eCheck processing for non-profits, churches, schools, and businesses since 1979. They offer a one-stop shop for electronic money processing solutions with a focus on ethical standards and confidentiality.
Key services
Electronic funds transfer (ACH/EFT), Credit card processing, Debit card processing, Website payment solutions, Swipe terminal, Virtual terminal, Email marketing services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, Fancybox, Flexslider, Owl Carousel, Google Analytics, Google Ads, Facebook SDK, CookieConsent.js
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • PCI compliance claimed
  • Client login portal secured via HTTPS

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Ads
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Google Ads, Facebook Pixel (via Facebook SDK)
Marketing tools
Email marketing services (mentioned), Google Ads, Facebook Customer Chat
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  3. Strong focus on non-profit and business payment processing
  4. Use of modern front-end frameworks and standard tracking tools
  5. Lack of explicit security headers and incident response info
  6. Cookie consent implemented with clear messaging
  7. No terms of service page found
  8. Contact information is clearly presented and consistent
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a ColdFusion backend indicated by .cfm URLs, with a front-end leveraging Bootstrap for responsive design and jQuery-based plugins for UI components like sliders and carousels. Hosting is supported by Microsoft Azure DNS infrastructure, ensuring reliable DNS resolution. Performance is moderate with standard optimization techniques applied. The site includes Google Analytics and Google Ads for tracking and marketing, alongside Facebook SDK for customer chat functionality. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic and could be improved. SEO is supported by appropriate meta tags and Open Graph data. Technical debt appears low but modernization opportunities exist in security headers and enhanced accessibility compliance.
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 etransfer.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 etransfer.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.