Skip to main content

Security report for indigogrp.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.indigogrp.com currently presents only a security verification page employing Google reCAPTCHA v3, indicating that access to the actual site content is blocked or restricted by a Web Application Firewall or similar bot protection mechanism. No business-related content, metadata, or contact information is accessible, preventing a full assessment of the company's operations or services. The WHOIS lookup for the domain returned no registration data, suggesting the domain may be unregistered, expired, or otherwise inactive, which further complicates trust and legitimacy evaluation. From a technical perspective, the site uses modern front-end libraries such as Bootstrap 5.3.3 and integrates Google reCAPTCHA for security verification. However, no information about SSL/TLS configuration, security headers, or hosting provider is available. The lack of accessible content and metadata limits the ability to assess SEO, accessibility, or performance. Security posture is minimal due to the absence of visible HTTPS enforcement and security headers in the provided data. The presence of Google reCAPTCHA indicates some level of bot mitigation, but the overall security maturity cannot be fully evaluated. Privacy compliance is lacking as no privacy or cookie policies are found, and no GDPR indicators are present. Overall, the domain and website present significant risks due to inaccessibility, lack of registration data, and absence of business or security transparency. Strategic recommendations include verifying domain registration status, ensuring HTTPS and security headers are implemented, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear contact and business information to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  2. 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.

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

  3. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

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

Keep watching indigogrp.com

This scan found 24 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. See sample alerts.

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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
61

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 the lack of accessible website content and absence of WHOIS registration data, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears inactive or blocked, and no information about market positioning, business model, revenue streams, or partnerships is available. The website's current state suggests it is either under maintenance, protected by aggressive security controls, or potentially abandoned. Without further data, no competitive advantages or growth indicators can be identified.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is limited to the use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection, which is a positive control against automated abuse. However, the absence of visible HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and published security policies indicates a low maturity level. The lack of incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms further reduces the site's security transparency. The domain's unknown registration status adds to the risk profile, as unregistered or expired domains can be exploited. Overall, the site demonstrates minimal security best practices and requires significant improvements to meet standard compliance and protection levels.

Recommendations

  1. Verify and update domain registration status to ensure legitimacy and continuity.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL/TLS certificates and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  5. Provide clear contact information including security incident response channels and data protection officer contacts.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is a security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 and no actual business content accessible, indicating a WAF or bot protection mechanism blocking access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is a security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 challenge
  2. No actual business content or navigation available
  3. No contact information, privacy policy, or terms of service found
  4. No WHOIS registration data available for domain
  5. Likely access is blocked by a WAF or bot protection mechanism
  6. No visible SSL/TLS or security headers information in provided data
  7. External resources loaded from trusted CDNs and Google domains only
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection, indicating some use of modern front-end technologies. However, the site content is limited to a security verification page with no visible CMS or backend technology identified. No hosting provider or performance metrics are available. The lack of accessible content and metadata restricts SEO and accessibility assessments. The site appears to be protected by a Web Application Firewall or similar mechanism that blocks normal access, which impacts usability and analysis. Technical debt or modernization opportunities cannot be fully assessed due to limited 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with indigogrp.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 indigogrp.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.