Inbound Back Office · Other · United States
High risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 2 other checks.
Inbound Back Office is a service provider specializing in white-label virtual assistant and marketing support services tailored for marketing agencies, fractional CMOs, and small businesses. The company positions itself as a scalable and seamless support partner, trusted by hundreds of teams globally to handle marketing execution and administrative tasks without the complexities of hiring. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with clear messaging and client testimonials that reinforce trust. Technically, the website leverages modern front-end technologies including Bootstrap, Tailwind CSS, jQuery, and integrates marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, and HubSpot. The site is built on Zephyr CMS and demonstrates good mobile optimization and user experience. However, some areas such as accessibility and SEO could be improved. Security-wise, HTTPS is properly implemented, but the absence of security headers and privacy/cookie policies indicates room for enhancement in compliance and protection. The security posture is moderate with no immediate vulnerabilities detected in the visible content, but the lack of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness. This discrepancy between professional website content and missing domain registration information suggests the need for further verification. Overall, the site is functional and credible from a business perspective but requires improvements in privacy compliance and security best practices. Strategically, the company should prioritize establishing clear privacy and cookie policies, implement security headers, and resolve WHOIS registration transparency to strengthen trust and compliance. Enhancing accessibility and SEO will also improve user reach and satisfaction.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information
What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured
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.
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google APIs
What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 23 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention inboundbackoffice.com, from OffSeq Breach.
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for inboundbackoffice.com.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with inboundbackoffice.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review inboundbackoffice.com.