Skip to main content

Security report for g2.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website www.g2.com is currently inaccessible due to a security challenge page employing captcha verification, likely as part of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot mitigation system. This prevents extraction of meaningful content, metadata, or business information. The WHOIS lookup failed to return any registration data, which is unusual for a well-known commercial domain and raises concerns about domain registration transparency. Technically, the site uses captcha-delivery.com services to block automated access, indicating a strong security posture against bots but limiting external analysis. Due to the lack of accessible content and metadata, no detailed business or security posture assessment can be performed. The overall risk assessment is elevated due to the inability to verify domain legitimacy and content authenticity.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of g2.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  1. 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.

    • Medium

      No MTA-STS Policy

      MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

      What to do: Implement MTA-STS to prevent downgrade attacks

  2. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Medium

      DNSSEC Not Enabled

      DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

      What to do: Enable DNSSEC to prevent DNS spoofing attacks

      • CAPEC-142
      • RFC 4033
      • RFC 4035

Keep watching g2.com

This scan found 4 issues across 3 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. See sample alerts.

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

Email security
87
DNS health
90
Network security
100
Average
92
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • SSL/TLS: did not complete in this scan.
  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: 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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

No business intelligence data could be extracted due to the blocked content and missing WHOIS information. The domain is known publicly as a software review platform, but this could not be confirmed from the provided data. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified. The lack of accessible contact or policy information limits assessment of business credibility and compliance.

Security posture

The presence of a captcha challenge indicates an active security mechanism to prevent automated abuse. However, no security headers or SSL configuration details were available for review. The absence of WHOIS data and domain registration details limits trust in domain legitimacy. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information was found. Overall, the security posture appears focused on access control but lacks transparency and publicly available security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Provide publicly accessible WHOIS registration data or use a reputable registrar with transparent records.
  2. Ensure the website content is accessible to legitimate users and external security/compliance auditors without excessive blocking.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and security policies to improve compliance and trust.
  4. Implement and expose security headers and SSL/TLS configurations for external verification.
  5. Establish and publicize incident response and vulnerability disclosure processes.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page content is a security challenge with captcha from captcha-delivery.com and iframe sandboxing, indicating WAF or bot mitigation blocking access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare captcha-delivery.com

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is fully blocked by a security challenge (captcha) preventing access to actual content.
  2. No metadata, forms, or business information could be extracted due to blocking.
  3. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating possible privacy protection or domain not found in queried WHOIS server.
  4. No contact information, policies, or security documentation found in the provided HTML.
  5. Technical stack indicates use of captcha-delivery.com for bot mitigation.
  6. No external business or social links detected in the HTML snippet.
  7. Content safety is rated safe but content is minimal and inaccessible.
  8. Overall analysis is incomplete due to WAF/security blocking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs a captcha service from captcha-delivery.com embedded via iframes and scripts, indicating a strong bot mitigation strategy. No CMS or other frameworks were detectable from the minimal HTML. The site is likely behind a WAF or similar security layer that blocks automated or suspicious traffic. Performance, SEO, and accessibility cannot be assessed due to lack of content. The technical stack is minimal and focused on security blocking rather than content delivery.
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. 73/100 −12Medium26 findingsView report
  2. 85/100 +5Low17 findingsView report
  3. 80/100Low19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with g2.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 g2.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.