Skip to main content

Security report for iconity.ai

Other · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website www.iconity.ai is currently inaccessible in full due to apparent web application firewall or security challenge mechanisms, as indicated by the malformed WHOIS response and truncated HTML content. This limits the ability to fully assess the business, technical, and security posture. The visible content is minimal and primarily includes Bootstrap CSS framework references without substantive business or contact information. The lack of WHOIS data further reduces transparency and trust. Without accessible privacy policies, contact details, or security disclosures, the site presents a low trust profile at this time.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 100 · Low
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

3 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. 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 iconity.ai

This scan found 19 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
40
Email security
75
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
Average
76

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 limited accessible content and missing WHOIS data, no definitive business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears to be technology-related based on the domain name and CSS framework usage, but no clear company name, services, or market positioning is available. No external partnerships or related domains are identified. The absence of contact information and policies suggests the site is either under development or intentionally restricted.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully evaluated due to content blocking and lack of accessible headers or SSL details. The site appears to lack visible security best practices such as privacy policies, cookie consent, or incident response contacts. The absence of WHOIS registrant data and domain status information further complicates trust assessment. The site should implement HTTPS, security headers, and transparent policies to improve security and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Ensure WHOIS data is properly published and not privacy-protected without justification.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  4. Improve website accessibility and content availability by adjusting WAF/security settings to avoid blocking legitimate analysis.
  5. Adopt security best practices including HTTPS, security headers, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. WHOIS query returned 'Malformed request' and the HTML content is truncated and minimal, indicating possible WAF or security challenge blocking full content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is unavailable or protected, limiting domain trust assessment.
  2. Website content is minimal and truncated, likely due to WAF or security blocking.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found or accessible.
  4. No contact information or business details are available on the accessible content.
  5. No external links or social media profiles detected in the accessible content.
  6. No scripts or analytics services detected due to content truncation.
  7. Website uses Bootstrap CSS framework as per inline styles.
  8. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
  9. Content appears safe with no adult or questionable material detected.
  10. Overall analysis is limited due to access restrictions and incomplete data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap v4.5.3 for styling, indicating a modern CSS framework. However, no CMS or backend technologies are detectable from the truncated content. The site lacks visible analytics or marketing scripts. Performance and SEO appear basic due to minimal content and metadata. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but limited by content availability. The technical infrastructure cannot be fully assessed due to WAF blocking and incomplete WHOIS data.
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. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with iconity.ai. 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 iconity.ai.

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.