Skip to main content

Security report for gic.gd

Game Industry Conference · Technology · Poland

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Game Industry Conference website represents a professional event focused on the game development industry, hosting one of the largest gamedev conferences in Europe held in Poznań, Poland. The business model centers on event organization, networking, and industry knowledge sharing. The site targets game developers and industry professionals, positioning itself as a key player in the European gaming conference market. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with Bootstrap framework, leveraging common technologies such as Google Tag Manager and Usercentrics for consent management. Hosting is provided by OVH, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection, but lacks DNSSEC and advanced security headers. Privacy compliance is partial, with a cookie consent mechanism but no visible privacy policy or terms of service. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professionally presented but could improve compliance and security transparency.

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

8 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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 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 gic.gd

This scan found 25 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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
52

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

The conference is well-established since 2015, indicating stable market presence. It serves a niche in the gaming industry, providing a platform for professionals to connect and learn. Revenue likely derives from ticket sales, sponsorships, and partnerships. The absence of detailed contact information or business registration data on the site limits deeper business intelligence. The social media presence on Twitter supports community engagement. The lack of privacy and terms pages may impact user trust and regulatory compliance. The site’s technical ecosystem is standard for event sites, with no evident advanced integrations or e-commerce capabilities.

Security posture

Security measures include HTTPS and domain transfer lock, which are baseline protections. However, the absence of DNSSEC and Content Security Policy headers represents missed opportunities to harden security. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which could hinder transparency and responsiveness to security issues. The cookie consent implementation aligns with GDPR requirements, but the lack of a privacy policy is a compliance gap. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could benefit from enhanced policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  3. Implement a Content Security Policy header to mitigate cross-site scripting risks.
  4. Create and publish a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility, including security and incident response contacts, to improve transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Game Industry Conference
Description
Heading for the biggest gamedev conference in Europe?
Key services
Conference hosting, Networking events, Industry talks
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Usercentrics CMP, W3 Total Cache, Bootstrap 4, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Ads Conversion Tracking
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads (AW-1065164032, AW-793257412)
Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (G-0NVBFCNK42)
Marketing tools
Usercentrics CMP
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional conference site for the Game Industry Conference in Poznań, Poland.
  2. Uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for caching and consent management.
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service pages found, which is a compliance gap.
  4. Cookie consent is implemented via Usercentrics CMP.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage HTML.
  6. No visible security.txt or incident response information.
  7. HTTPS is enabled and domain status clientTransferProhibited is set.
  8. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a recommended security improvement.
  9. No signs of adult or questionable content; content is safe for general audiences.
  10. External links mostly to trusted domains for fonts, analytics, and CDN services.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a WordPress CMS with Bootstrap 4 framework and Google Fonts for typography. It employs caching via W3 Total Cache and integrates Google Tag Manager and Usercentrics CMP for analytics and consent management. Hosting is via OVH, indicated by nameservers. The site is mobile optimized and uses modern web standards, but lacks advanced accessibility features and some security headers. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in loading speed and security hardening. The technical stack is typical for event websites, with no custom or proprietary technologies detected.
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 gic.gd. 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 gic.gd.

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.