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 or blocked by security mechanisms, as indicated by the malformed WHOIS response and truncated HTML content. Due to this, no meaningful business, technical, or security information could be extracted. The domain's WHOIS data is unavailable, suggesting privacy protection or query issues, which limits trust and legitimacy assessment. Without access to the full website content, it is not possible to evaluate the company's market position, services, or technical infrastructure. The security posture cannot be assessed due to lack of data, and no contact or compliance information is available. Overall, the site appears to be protected by a generic WAF or security layer, restricting analysis.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of iconity.ai. View the latest report

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

No business intelligence could be derived due to lack of accessible content and WHOIS data. The absence of registrant information and website content prevents evaluation of market positioning, business model, or partnerships. The domain appears to be privacy protected or obscured, which is common but reduces transparency.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be evaluated due to absence of accessible website content and security headers. The site likely uses HTTPS given the domain, but no SSL configuration details or security best practices could be confirmed. The presence of a WAF or security challenge is inferred, which may indicate some level of security awareness. However, the lack of visible security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosures limits confidence in security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Ensure WHOIS data is properly published or accessible to improve domain transparency and trust.
  2. Make privacy policy, cookie policy, and terms of service publicly accessible to enhance compliance and user trust.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts to improve security posture.
  4. Review WAF or security challenge configurations to allow legitimate security and compliance scanners to access site content.
  5. Implement and publish vulnerability disclosure and data protection officer information to demonstrate security maturity.
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

Technology

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is not accessible or malformed, indicating privacy protection or query issues.
  2. Website content is truncated and minimal, suggesting blocking by WAF or security mechanisms.
  3. No privacy policy, cookie policy, or terms of service detected in accessible content.
  4. No contact information or business details found in the accessible content.
  5. No security headers or SSL configuration details available due to lack of full content.
  6. No external links or social media links detected in accessible content.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected due to content truncation.
  8. Content safety is rated safe based on absence of adult or explicit content, but content is inaccessible.
  9. Overall analysis is incomplete due to blocking; further access required for full assessment.
Technical notes

Notes

Due to the truncated and minimal HTML content, no definitive technical stack or CMS could be identified. The site uses Bootstrap CSS framework as indicated by CSS imports, but no JavaScript libraries or analytics tools were detected. The hosting provider and platform remain unknown. Performance, accessibility, and SEO optimizations cannot be assessed. The site appears to be protected by a generic WAF or security mechanism that blocks full content retrieval.
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.