Skip to main content

Security report for gcore.com

Gcore · Technology · Luxembourg

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Gcore is a well-established technology company founded in 2003, specializing in global hosting, content delivery network (CDN), edge computing, and cloud services. The company targets businesses seeking to expand their digital presence globally by leveraging high-performance infrastructure solutions. Their market position is that of a global provider with a strong network and multiple service offerings, supported by a large-scale operational footprint and a consistent brand presence. Technically, the website is built using modern web technologies including Angular and static site generation with Scully, ensuring good performance and mobile optimization. The site employs Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, and uses HTTPS to secure communications. However, some security best practices such as security headers and explicit privacy and cookie policies are missing, which could be improved to enhance compliance and user trust. From a security perspective, the site shows a good baseline with HTTPS and no exposed sensitive data, but lacks published security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. The domain registration data is consistent and supports the legitimacy of the business, with no privacy protection masking ownership and a domain age of over 20 years. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy, but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security transparency to improve user confidence and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

2 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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 gcore.com

This scan found 15 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
75
Email security
80
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
81

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 gcore.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
3,225
Employees
0
Customers
3,225
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
8%

41 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 gcore.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

Gcore operates in the technology sector, providing essential cloud infrastructure and CDN services to a global business audience. Their business model is B2B, focusing on delivering scalable hosting and edge computing solutions. The company leverages a strong partnership ecosystem visible through social media and structured data, and maintains a consistent brand image. Revenue streams likely include subscription-based cloud services and usage-based CDN offerings. The company’s growth indicators include a mature domain age and a comprehensive service portfolio. Strategic observations suggest opportunities in expanding compliance documentation and security transparency to strengthen market trust and competitive advantage.

Security posture

The security maturity of Gcore’s website is moderate. HTTPS is properly implemented, and no sensitive data leaks are evident. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. There is no visible security policy or incident response contact information, which limits transparency and readiness for security incidents. Compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations is unclear due to missing privacy and cookie policies. The lack of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file further indicates room for improvement in security culture and incident management. Addressing these gaps would reduce risk and enhance stakeholder confidence.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with clear consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to strengthen web security posture.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Create and maintain a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct regular security audits to maintain high standards of security and user experience.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Gcore
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Gcore
Description
We provide powerful solutions that will help your business grow globally. Try our superior performance for free
Key services
Global Hosting, Content Delivery Network (CDN), Edge Computing, Cloud Services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Scully (Static Site Generator), Montserrat font, Custom CSS
Frameworks
Angular
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of client-side scripts for analytics

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on main page content
  3. Contact information includes physical address and contact form but no direct emails or phone numbers found
  4. Strong use of structured data for SEO and organization info
  5. Use of modern web technologies and static site generation
  6. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure
  7. Social media presence is well linked and consistent
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Angular framework with static site generation via Scully, which supports good performance and SEO. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and tracking. The site is mobile optimized and uses modern fonts and CSS styling for a professional appearance. However, no CMS is detected, indicating a custom or static site approach. Hosting provider details are not explicit. Performance is moderate with room for optimization. Technical risks include missing security headers and incomplete privacy compliance. Modernization opportunities include adding automated security headers and improving accessibility compliance.
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 gcore.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 gcore.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.