Incom GmbH · Education · Germany
Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.
Incom GmbH operates a specialized communication and collaboration platform tailored for higher education institutions, particularly targeting design and art universities in Germany. The platform facilitates modern teaching concepts, enabling seamless interaction between educators and students, and extends the scope of academic courses both temporally and spatially. The business model is based on a cost-effective SaaS offering with included support and consulting services, positioning Incom as a niche player in the educational technology sector. The company has been established since 2005, reflecting a mature presence in its market segment. Technically, the website employs a modern yet straightforward technology stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, Font Awesome, and Matomo for privacy-conscious analytics. The platform is custom-built without reliance on common CMS solutions, hosted under a reputable registrar with stable DNS configurations. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and SEO practices, although some accessibility features could be enhanced. Performance is moderate, suitable for the target audience. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS with AES 256-bit encryption, avoids third-party advertising and tracking services like Google Analytics, and respects user privacy by not profiling visitors. However, it lacks DNSSEC and important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and HSTS, which are recommended to strengthen its security posture. No incident response or security policy information is published, which could be improved to enhance trust. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences, with no adult or questionable content. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, showing consistency and legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include implementing DNSSEC, adding security headers, publishing security policies, and introducing cookie consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance and security maturity.
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.
6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
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 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
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 21 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 incom.org, from OffSeq Breach.
20 subdomains affected
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 incom.org.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Domains that imitate incom.org and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.
Last checked 2026-06-19
See the full lookalike list
A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of incom.org with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.
Select it in the checkout above.
Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.
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 incom.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review incom.org.