Skip to main content

Security report for igamingaffiliateprograms.com

Casino City Press · Other · N/A

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com is a specialized affiliate marketing platform and directory focused on the iGaming industry, operated by Casino City Press since 1999. The website offers a comprehensive guide to iGaming affiliate programs, industry news, trade show information, and networking opportunities for affiliates and vendors. It holds a moderate market position within its niche, targeting affiliate marketers and online gaming vendors. Technically, the site uses a ColdFusion backend with jQuery on the frontend, hosted behind Cloudflare DNS, and implements basic security headers and HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate. However, the SSL configuration lacks modern TLS protocol support, which is a security concern. The site lacks a cookie consent mechanism despite having a privacy policy, and no direct contact information or security policies are published, indicating room for improvement in compliance and transparency. Overall, the website is functional with good content relevance but basic design and user experience.

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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching igamingaffiliateprograms.com

This scan found 17 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
95
Security headers
60
Email security
55
DNS health
85
Network security
85
GDPR outside view
43
Average
71

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 business operates as an affiliate marketing directory and resource hub for the iGaming sector, generating revenue through affiliate partnerships and advertising. It maintains partnerships with industry associations such as GPWA and APCW, enhancing credibility. The target audience includes affiliate marketers and online gaming vendors seeking affiliate programs. The company leverages cross-promotion with related finance affiliate sites and maintains active social media channels. Growth indicators include regular news updates and trade show promotions. The business model is primarily content and affiliate-driven, with a medium-sized operation and consistent branding. Strategic partnerships and advertising networks support its ecosystem.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with strong HTTP security headers including HSTS with preload, X-Frame-Options DENY, and a restrictive Content-Security-Policy. The SSL certificate is valid but the absence of modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2/1.3) reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE are detected. However, the lack of a published security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure reduces transparency and preparedness. No GDPR cookie consent mechanism is implemented despite having a privacy policy, indicating compliance gaps. The absence of direct contact channels for security incidents further limits incident response readiness. Overall, the security culture appears basic with room for enhancement in compliance and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) to strengthen SSL security.
  2. Implement a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Enhance mobile optimization and accessibility to improve user experience and broaden reach.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a ColdFusion backend with jQuery libraries for frontend interactivity. It uses Cloudflare for DNS hosting and likely CDN services. The site employs custom CMS-like functionality without popular CMS frameworks. Performance is fast with minimal resource overhead. However, the SSL/TLS configuration is outdated, lacking support for modern protocols. The site includes multiple iframe-based advertisements from affiliate ad networks. SEO is supported by meta tags and structured navigation. Mobile optimization is basic, and accessibility features are minimal. Technical debt is indicated by legacy ColdFusion usage and lack of modern security protocols. Opportunities exist for modernization of the tech stack and improved compliance with privacy and security standards.
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 igamingaffiliateprograms.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 igamingaffiliateprograms.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.