Skip to main content

Security report for i-o.digital

IO Digital Pvt Ltd · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

IO Digital Pvt Ltd is a mature digital transformation agency founded in 2017, offering a comprehensive suite of marketing and technology services including brand consultancy, social media management, video production, influencer marketing, digital media management, and web/app development. The company positions itself as a leading and fastest growing agency targeting businesses seeking digital growth and transformation. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Elementor and uses common marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and reCAPTCHA. However, the website suffers from a critical security deficiency due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, exposing visitors to potential risks. The security posture is weak with no security headers or advanced SSL features enabled. Privacy and cookie policies are present but lack explicit consent mechanisms, indicating partial privacy compliance. The domain is registered with a reputable registrar and protected by privacy services, which is typical for this business type. Overall, the website is content-rich and professionally presented but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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

5 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 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 i-o.digital

This scan found 22 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
61

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 company operates in the technology and media sectors as a full-service digital agency with a medium-sized footprint. It leverages partnerships with major platforms such as Google, Meta, TikTok, and Yandex to deliver advertising and marketing services. The business model focuses on providing end-to-end digital transformation solutions to clients, supported by a portfolio of notable clients and case studies. The use of privacy protection in domain registration is justified given the agency nature of the business. The company maintains an active social media presence across multiple platforms, enhancing its market reach and brand visibility. The website content and structure reflect a professional approach with clear service offerings and client engagement channels.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the lack of HTTPS and SSL certificate, absence of security headers, and no advanced SSL features like HSTS or OCSP stapling. While Google reCAPTCHA is implemented on forms to reduce spam, the overall site security is compromised by the missing encryption layer, which is critical for protecting user data and maintaining trust. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are provided, indicating a gap in security governance and incident management readiness. The domain registration is protected by privacy services, which is common but obscures registrant details. Immediate remediation is required to install a valid SSL certificate and enable HTTPS to meet basic security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Install and configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire website.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enable HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload directives to enforce secure connections.
  4. Add explicit cookie consent mechanisms to comply with privacy regulations and enhance user trust.
  5. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using Elementor as the page builder, with jQuery and several plugins including Contact Form 7 and Select2 for enhanced form controls. Google reCAPTCHA is used for spam protection on forms. The site is hosted likely via GoDaddy as inferred from DNS and registrar data. Performance is slow with a large page size (~2MB) and high load time (~18 seconds), indicating optimization opportunities. SEO is supported with proper meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility is basic. The absence of HTTPS is a major technical risk. The tech stack is modern but requires security and performance improvements.
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 i-o.digital. 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 i-o.digital.

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.