Skip to main content

Security report for every-pay.com

EveryPay · Finance · Estonia

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

EveryPay operates as a payment gateway service provider offering a merchant portal and risk management tools to facilitate real-time transaction tracking, refunds, and fraud prevention. The website targets merchants and e-commerce businesses primarily in Estonia and the Baltic region, supporting multiple languages including English, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian. The company positions itself as a reliable regional payment service provider with a focus on merchant support and integration ease. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins such as Yoast SEO and WPML for multilingual support. It uses Uikit for styling and includes Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking. The site is mobile optimized and has good SEO practices, though accessibility features are basic. Performance is moderate with no major technical issues detected. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses secure forms with nonce tokens. However, it lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies, which are areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found. The WHOIS data for the subdomain is unavailable, which is typical and not suspicious. Contact information is clearly provided, enhancing trust. Overall, the website demonstrates a solid business and technical foundation with moderate security posture. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance and security headers would enhance trust and compliance. The site is suitable for its target audience but could benefit from enhanced transparency and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

6 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.

    • 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 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Google APIs

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

  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 every-pay.com

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
72
Security headers
65
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
59

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

EveryPay serves the finance and e-commerce sectors by providing payment gateway services and merchant support tools. Its multilingual support and regional focus in the Baltic states position it well in a competitive market. The business model revolves around SaaS payment solutions with integration modules for popular e-commerce platforms. Revenue likely derives from merchant fees and service subscriptions. The presence of partner domains like sebgroup's ecommerce support suggests strategic partnerships enhancing service offerings. The company maintains a professional online presence with consistent branding and detailed support content, indicating a mature operational state with growth potential in regional markets.

Security posture

The website exhibits a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and secure form handling. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published, indicating gaps in transparency and preparedness. Tracking scripts are present without visible cookie consent mechanisms, raising privacy compliance concerns under GDPR. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, but improvements in security headers and privacy disclosures are recommended to enhance compliance and reduce risk.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to ensure GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen security posture.
  3. Publish a security incident response policy and provide dedicated contact channels for vulnerability reporting.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve usability for all users and meet compliance standards.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and improve transparency.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
EveryPay
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
EveryPay
Description
EveryPay provides a powerful merchant portal and risk management tools allowing merchants to track transactions in real-time, make refunds, and manage fraud prevention. Support is offered in English, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian.
Key services
Merchant portal, Risk management tools, Payment integration modules, Customer support
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, jQuery, Google Analytics, SitePress Multilingual CMS (WPML), PressApps Knowledge Base plugin, EveryPay custom blocks plugin
Frameworks
Uikit (CSS framework)
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure form with nonce token for search

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Lfeeder tracker
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 no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is well structured and multilingual support is evident.
  3. Contact information is clearly provided with multiple phone numbers and email.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on the main page.
  5. Security headers are not visible in the HTML content; potential improvement area.
  6. Use of modern CMS and SEO plugins indicates good technical maintenance.
  7. Tracking scripts from Google Analytics and Tag Manager are present, but no cookie consent mechanism detected.
  8. WHOIS data for the subdomain is not available, which is expected behavior.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform utilizing popular plugins such as Yoast SEO for search optimization and WPML for multilingual content management. The front-end uses the Uikit CSS framework and jQuery library, ensuring responsive design and interactive elements. Google Analytics and Tag Manager are integrated for user behavior tracking. Performance is moderate with no critical technical debt observed. The site lacks advanced security headers and explicit privacy mechanisms, which are technical gaps. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy technical controls.
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 every-pay.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 every-pay.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.