Skip to main content

Security report for fancs.com

株式会社ファンコミュニケーションズ FANCOMI · Technology · Japan

Partial score · DNS & email only

72/100

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

株式会社ファンコミュニケーションズ FANCOMI operates as a leading digital marketing company specializing in performance-based advertising, primarily through its extensive affiliate network. Positioned as one of the world's largest success-based ad networks, the company offers CPA solutions and digital marketing services targeting advertisers, agencies, investors, and job seekers. The website serves as the official corporate portal providing company information, investor relations, news, recruitment, and contact avenues. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with a legacy PHP backend, leveraging common web technologies such as Apache, jQuery, and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. While the SSL certificate is valid, the absence of modern TLS protocols and security headers indicates room for improvement in security posture. The company demonstrates trust through certifications like the Privacy Mark and listing on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. However, explicit cookie consent mechanisms and detailed security policies are not evident, suggesting potential compliance gaps. Overall, the site reflects a mature digital presence with solid business positioning but requires enhancements in security and privacy compliance to align with best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

4 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, Facebook, Twitter

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

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

Keep watching fancs.com

This scan found 14 issues across 5 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
70
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
72

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 fancs.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
5
Employees
0
Customers
2
Third parties
3
Weak passwords
40%

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 fancs.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

The company holds a strong market position in the technology and media sectors, focusing on performance-based advertising and digital marketing solutions. Its business model revolves around CPA advertising, leveraging a large affiliate network to drive measurable results for clients. The presence of subsidiaries such as fancsglobal.com and thewand.jp indicates a diversified group structure. The company targets advertisers, agencies, investors, and potential employees, offering services including affiliate marketing, CPA solutions, and digital advertising platforms. Partnerships with recognized ad networks and platforms like A8.net and seedapp.jp enhance its ecosystem. The company maintains a professional and consistent brand image with good content quality and SEO optimization, supporting its competitive advantage in the Japanese market.

Security posture

The website's security posture is moderate, with a valid SSL certificate issued by a reputable CA and no detected critical SSL vulnerabilities. However, the server supports no modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or higher), which is a significant security concern. The absence of HTTP security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. The PHP version in use (5.6.40) is outdated and no longer supported, increasing risk exposure. DNSSEC and CAA records are not enabled, limiting domain security. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no dedicated security contact channels are found. While the company holds privacy certifications and complies with some trust standards, improvements in technical security controls and transparency are recommended to enhance resilience and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable and enforce TLS 1.2 or higher protocols to secure data in transit.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers including HSTS with preload, Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Upgrade PHP to a supported and secure version to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  4. Deploy DNSSEC and CAA records to strengthen domain name system security.
  5. Introduce a clear cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website runs on a CentOS server with Apache 2.4.6 and PHP 5.6.40, indicating legacy infrastructure that may require modernization. WordPress 4.9.26 is used as the CMS, with plugins such as Contact Form 7 and Inquiry Form Creator for form handling. Frontend technologies include jQuery and FontAwesome. Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics are integrated for marketing and analytics purposes, alongside User Heat for user behavior tracking. The site is optimized for mobile with responsive images and viewport settings. Performance metrics indicate fast load times, though no detailed resource counts or page sizes were provided. SEO is enhanced with structured data (JSON-LD) and Open Graph metadata. The hosting IP and DNS records show no DNSSEC or CAA, and the SSL configuration lacks modern protocol support, highlighting areas for technical improvement.
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 fancs.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 fancs.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.