Skip to main content

Security report for gft.com

GFT Technologies SE · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

GFT Technologies SE is a global technology company specializing in digital transformation and IT modernization services, primarily serving the banking, insurance, and manufacturing sectors. The company leverages advanced technologies such as cloud computing, AI, blockchain, and IoT to deliver innovative solutions that help enterprises stay competitive. Their strong partner ecosystem includes major cloud providers and fintech innovators, reinforcing their market position. Technically, the website is built on modern frameworks like Vue.js and managed via Magnolia CMS, with integrations for analytics and consent management tools such as Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, and Cookiebot. While the site is mobile-optimized and well-structured for SEO and accessibility, performance metrics were not available. The hosting is supported by Fastly CDN, ensuring global content delivery. From a security perspective, the site implements several best practices including a Content Security Policy, secure cookie flags, and security headers. However, the SSL certificate is invalid or missing, and modern TLS protocols are not supported, which significantly impacts the security posture. No explicit security policy or incident response information is publicly available, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file was found. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy image with comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, but the lack of valid SSL and modern TLS support are critical issues that should be addressed promptly to improve security and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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 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: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube

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

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

Keep watching gft.com

This scan found 14 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
50
Security headers
85
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
72

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

GFT operates as a B2B technology services provider with a focus on digital transformation in financial services and manufacturing industries. Their business model centers on delivering tailored IT solutions leveraging emerging technologies. The company demonstrates strong market positioning through strategic partnerships with leading cloud and fintech providers. Their content and communications emphasize innovation, quality, and client success stories, indicating a mature marketing and business development approach. Investor relations transparency and awards further reinforce credibility and growth orientation. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers on the main site suggests a controlled communication strategy, likely funneling inquiries through contact forms. The company maintains a global presence with localized sites and multilingual support, targeting enterprise clients worldwide.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is moderate but with notable weaknesses. Positive aspects include the use of security headers such as CSP, HSTS (though not fully enabled), X-Frame-Options, and secure cookie attributes. The site also employs consent management and analytics tools with privacy considerations. However, the invalid SSL certificate and lack of support for TLS 1.2 and 1.3 protocols are significant vulnerabilities that expose users to potential interception and downgrade attacks. The absence of OCSP stapling and session resumption mechanisms further reduces TLS efficiency and security. No public security policy or incident response contacts were found, which limits transparency and preparedness perception. No known vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected in the provided data.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS securely.
  2. Enable and enforce HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload directives to prevent protocol downgrade attacks.
  3. Upgrade TLS support to include TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols and disable legacy insecure protocols.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.
  5. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve TLS performance and security.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript framework (Vue.js) and is managed via Magnolia CMS, indicating a contemporary and scalable technical infrastructure. Integration with multiple analytics and marketing tools shows a mature digital marketing setup. Hosting via Fastly CDN suggests good global content delivery capabilities. However, the SSL/TLS configuration is incomplete or misconfigured, which is a critical technical risk. Performance data was not available, but the site appears mobile-optimized and accessible with good SEO practices. The use of inline and eval scripts in CSP could be reviewed to reduce potential security risks.
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 gft.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 gft.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.