Skip to main content

Security report for g2.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.g2.com is currently inaccessible due to a security challenge page implemented via captcha-delivery.com scripts and iframe interstitials, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot mitigation system. This prevents access to any meaningful content, metadata, or business information, severely limiting the ability to perform a comprehensive analysis. The WHOIS query for the domain returned no match, providing no registrar, creation, or expiry data, which further complicates trust and legitimacy assessments. Due to these access restrictions, no contact information, privacy policies, or business details could be extracted or verified. From a technical perspective, the site employs third-party captcha services to mitigate automated access, which is a positive security measure but also restricts content visibility. No information about the technology stack, hosting provider, or CMS could be determined. Security headers and SSL configuration details are unavailable due to the blocked content. Given the lack of accessible content and WHOIS data, the overall risk assessment is elevated due to transparency concerns. However, no direct evidence of malicious activity or vulnerabilities was found. Strategic recommendations focus on enabling controlled access for security and compliance audits, improving WHOIS transparency, and ensuring publicly accessible privacy and security policies to enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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. 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"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. 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

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

Keep watching g2.com

This scan found 17 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. 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

SSL/TLS
75
Security headers
40
Email security
87
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Due to the absence of accessible content and metadata, no detailed business intelligence could be derived. The domain is known publicly as a software review platform, but this analysis cannot confirm current operational status or business model from the provided data. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified. The lack of contact or policy information limits insights into customer engagement or compliance posture.

Security posture

The presence of a WAF or bot mitigation system indicates an active security posture aimed at preventing automated abuse. However, the inability to access the site content or security headers prevents a full evaluation of security best practices such as HTTPS enforcement, CSP headers, or secure cookie usage. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The WHOIS data absence reduces transparency and trust. Overall, the security posture appears cautious but opaque.

Recommendations

  1. Enable a controlled access mechanism or provide a staging environment for security and compliance assessments to avoid blocking legitimate analysis.
  2. Ensure WHOIS data is publicly available and accurate to improve domain trust and legitimacy.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and security policies accessible without security challenges to demonstrate compliance.
  4. Implement security headers and document incident response and vulnerability disclosure procedures publicly.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing verified contact information and business details on publicly accessible pages.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is blocked by a security mechanism involving captcha-delivery.com scripts and iframe interstitial, indicating a WAF or bot protection challenge page. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
captcha-delivery.com script

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 inaccessible due to a security challenge page.
  2. No meaningful HTML content or metadata available for analysis.
  3. WHOIS data is missing or protected, limiting domain trust evaluation.
  4. No contact, policy, or business information found in the provided HTML.
  5. External scripts relate to captcha and bot mitigation services.
  6. No signs of adult or unsafe content detected.
  7. Analysis incomplete due to WAF/security mechanisms. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com
Technical notes

Notes

The website relies on third-party captcha and bot mitigation services (captcha-delivery.com) to protect against automated access. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. The HTML content is minimal and primarily consists of scripts and iframes related to security challenges. Performance, SEO, and accessibility cannot be assessed due to content blocking. The technical infrastructure appears focused on security but lacks transparency for external evaluation.
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. 75/100Medium4 findings · partial scanView 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.