Skip to main content

Security report for files.fm

Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. · Technology · Australia

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Files.fm is a cloud storage and file sharing service established in 2011, operated under the domain registered by Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. The platform offers secure EU-based file storage, sharing, publishing, and backup services targeting both individual users and businesses. It supports multiple languages and provides desktop and mobile applications, along with AI-powered content search features. The business model includes freemium and paid subscription plans, with additional services such as content selling and integrated upload forms. The website demonstrates consistent branding and professional content quality.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

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 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

  2. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

  3. 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
    • 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 files.fm

This scan found 22 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
37
Security headers
75
Email security
75
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
73

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 files.fm, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
10,344
Employees
3
Customers
10,270
Third parties
71
Weak passwords
19%

Latest record dated 2026-07-21 · 19 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 files.fm.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • su•••@files.fmfiles.fm2026-07-21
  • su•••@files.fmfiles.fm2026-07-13
  • su•••@files.fmfiles.fm2026-07-08

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Brand lookalikes

Add-on

Domains that imitate files.fm and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.

Tracked
2
Registered
2
Resolving
2
High or critical
0

Last checked 2026-10-07

Masked preview

  • fi•••.fmMediumomission
  • fi•••••.comNot ratedvarious

See the full lookalike list

A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of files.fm with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.

Select it in the checkout above.

Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Files.fm positions itself as a reliable and secure cloud storage provider with a focus on privacy and EU data protection standards. Its competitive advantages include AI content search, integrated payment storefronts, and multi-platform support. The target customers range from general internet users to businesses requiring secure file management and sharing solutions. The company leverages partnerships with major technology providers for analytics and marketing. Growth indicators include recent feature additions and active app development. The absence of direct phone contacts suggests a primarily digital customer support model.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v2 to protect user forms from abuse. It supports two-factor authentication and performs email validation including MX record checks. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no explicit HTTP security headers were detected in the provided data. There is no published security policy or incident response contact information, nor a vulnerability disclosure program. These gaps represent moderate compliance and security maturity levels. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by implementing DNSSEC, security headers, and formal security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy page and provide clear incident response contact channels.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Add a visible cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Instra Corporation Pty Ltd.
Description
Store, share, publish and manage files, photos and videos in one secure EU-based platform.
Key services
Secure Cloud Drive, File sharing, File publishing, Content selling, AI content search, File upload integration, Desktop and mobile apps
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Matomo Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Google reCAPTCHA v2, Cloudflare DNS, Bootstrap CSS
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
Web, Android app, iOS app, Desktop Sync
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v2 on forms
  • Email validation with MX record checks
  • Two-factor authentication support
  • Session management with nonce tokens

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo, Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional cloud storage and file sharing platform.
  2. Content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges.
  3. Multiple language versions supported.
  4. Strong focus on security with 2FA and captcha integration.
  5. Social login options available except Facebook login currently disabled.
  6. No explicit cookie consent banner detected despite cookie usage.
  7. WHOIS data shows long domain age and stable registration.
  8. No direct phone numbers or physical addresses found in content.
  9. Privacy and terms policies are present and linked.
  10. Use of modern analytics and marketing tools evident.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, Matomo and Google Analytics for tracking, and Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection. Hosting is supported by Cloudflare DNS services, providing performance and security benefits. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and supports multiple languages. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. The codebase includes custom JavaScript for form validation and user interaction. There is no evidence of a CMS, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Technical debt appears low, but improvements in security headers and cookie management are recommended.
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. 67/100 +3Medium29 findingsView report
  2. 64/100Medium30 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with files.fm. 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 files.fm.

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.