Skip to main content

Security report for eyeota.com

Eyeota · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Eyeota operates as a data provider specializing in audience targeting data for advertisers and marketers. The company focuses on enriching insights, enhancing personalization, and transforming audience targeting to help clients engage their best customers. The website is professionally designed with a clear focus on digital marketing and data services, targeting a business audience in the advertising and marketing sectors. The technical infrastructure leverages modern marketing and analytics technologies including Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and HubSpot CMS, indicating a mature digital presence. However, the absence of publicly available WHOIS data raises questions about domain registration transparency. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied and Google Consent Mode implemented, but lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security documentation to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of eyeota.com. View the latest report

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

2 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"

  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 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 eyeota.com

This scan found 19 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
45
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
76

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 eyeota.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
22
Employees
0
Customers
4
Third parties
18
Weak passwords
14%

2 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 eyeota.com.

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

Eyeota positions itself as a trusted provider of audience targeting data, serving advertisers and marketers who require enriched data to improve personalization and targeting effectiveness. The business model revolves around data enrichment and audience segmentation services, likely generating revenue through data licensing or platform subscriptions. The company appears to have a medium-sized operation with consistent branding and integration of industry-standard marketing tools. The lack of explicit company registration or contact details on the website limits full business intelligence assessment. The partnership ecosystem is not explicitly detailed, but the use of major analytics and advertising platforms suggests integration with leading digital marketing ecosystems. Growth indicators and market positioning appear stable but would benefit from more transparent corporate disclosures.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS usage and implementation of Google Consent Mode for privacy compliance. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security robustness. No explicit vulnerability disclosures, security.txt files, or incident response contacts are present, which limits the organization's readiness to handle security incidents. The lack of visible privacy and cookie policies also indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. To improve security posture, Eyeota should implement comprehensive security headers, publish clear privacy and cookie policies, and provide dedicated security incident contact information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to enhance GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen website security.
  3. Publish a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Provide clear and verified contact information including emails and phone numbers for business and security inquiries.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and update third-party libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Eyeota
Description
Engage your best customers with trusted audience data | enrich insights, enhance personalization and transform audience targeting.
Key services
Audience targeting data, Data enrichment, Personalization enhancement, Audience targeting transformation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics 4, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, HubSpot, FontAwesome
Platforms
HubSpot CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by canonical link https://www.eyeota.com)
  • Google Consent Mode implemented for privacy compliance

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics 4, HubSpot Analytics, LinkedIn Insight, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Boomtrain
Marketing tools
HubSpot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing or not publicly available, raising legitimacy questions.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content provided.
  5. Website uses multiple third-party marketing and analytics tools.
  6. Content is business-focused, targeting advertisers and marketers.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. No data protection officer or incident response contact information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the HubSpot CMS platform and utilizes a modern technology stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics 4, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and FontAwesome for icons. The site includes responsive design elements and is optimized for mobile devices. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics and marketing scripts. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility features are basic but present. The absence of explicit hosting provider information limits full infrastructure assessment. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could be improved with enhanced security configurations and more transparent business data integration.
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. 76/100 +15Low27 findingsView report
  2. 61/100 −15Medium21 findingsView report
  3. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with eyeota.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 eyeota.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.