Skip to main content

Security report for indx.money

INDX TRANSACTION LLC · Finance · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

INDX.money operates as a cryptocurrency exchange platform offering spot trading for a wide range of cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and various altcoins. The platform targets cryptocurrency traders and investors seeking a multi-asset trading environment with API access and portfolio management tools. The business appears to be a medium-sized entity operating under the legal name INDX TRANSACTION LLC, with a history dating back to 1998 based on copyright information. The market position is niche, focusing on integration with WebMoney and offering a variety of trading pairs. Technically, the website employs JavaScript and Highcharts for data visualization and uses Google Analytics for user tracking. However, the platform suffers from significant security shortcomings, notably the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, which severely impacts user trust and security posture. Performance is slow with a high number of resources loaded, and mobile optimization is basic. SEO and accessibility features are present but minimal. Security posture is weak due to missing modern TLS protocols, lack of security headers, and no evidence of incident response or data protection officer contact. The presence of a Bug Bounty program indicates some security awareness, but critical vulnerabilities remain unaddressed. Privacy compliance is basic with no cookie consent mechanism and limited privacy policy details. Overall, the platform presents moderate business credibility but requires urgent improvements in security infrastructure and privacy compliance to enhance trustworthiness and protect users effectively.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of indx.money. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching indx.money

This scan found 15 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
50
Security headers
85
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
69

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention indx.money, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for indx.money right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

INDX.money operates in the competitive cryptocurrency exchange market, offering a broad selection of trading pairs and integration with the WebMoney ecosystem. Its business model centers on facilitating spot trading with low fees and advanced tools, targeting active crypto traders. The platform's partnership with WebMoney-related domains suggests a strategic alliance to leverage existing payment and trading infrastructures. Revenue streams likely include trading fees and possibly API access subscriptions. Growth indicators include a diverse asset offering and a Bug Bounty program signaling ongoing security efforts. However, the lack of comprehensive contact information and limited transparency on company size and location may hinder broader market trust and expansion.

Security posture

The security maturity level of indx.money is currently low. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support exposes users to potential man-in-the-middle attacks and data interception. No modern TLS protocols are enabled, and critical security headers are missing, increasing vulnerability to common web attacks. There is no visible incident response contact or data protection officer information, indicating gaps in compliance with GDPR and other regulations. While a Bug Bounty program exists, it is insufficient to mitigate the fundamental security flaws. The platform should prioritize securing communications, implementing security best practices, and enhancing transparency around data protection to reduce business risk.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and enable HSTS with preload and includeSubDomains.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Develop and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  5. Establish and publicize incident response contacts and appoint a Data Protection Officer if applicable.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a JavaScript-heavy front end with Highcharts for data visualization and Google Analytics for tracking. The hosting provider is not clearly identified but DNS records point to servers under galleryvalery.com. Performance is slow with a load time exceeding 20 seconds and a high number of resources (131). Mobile optimization is basic, and accessibility features are minimal. The lack of a CMS or modern frameworks suggests a custom-built platform. Technical debt is evident in the outdated or missing SSL configuration and absence of security headers, which pose operational risks. Modernization opportunities include adopting a robust CMS or framework, optimizing resource loading, and enhancing mobile responsiveness.
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. 73/100Medium26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with indx.money. 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 indx.money.

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.