Skip to main content

Security report for inquirygrid.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 3 other checks.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website inquirygrid.com appears to be a newly registered domain (March 2023) with minimal content primarily consisting of an embedded iframe from an external source. There is no visible business branding, contact information, or policy documentation on the site. The technical infrastructure is basic, with no CMS or modern frameworks detected, and the site lacks standard security headers and DNSSEC. The presence of tracking pixels and obfuscated iframe parameters suggests a focus on data collection or advertising rather than user engagement or service provision. Security posture is weak due to missing headers and DNSSEC, and privacy compliance is poor with no policies found. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile with limited business credibility and poor content quality.

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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Security headers

    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.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. 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

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

Keep watching inquirygrid.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.

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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
45
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
59

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

No explicit business information, company name, or sector is provided on the website. The domain registration is transparent but lacks registrant details. The site does not disclose any services, target audience, or market positioning. The business model and revenue streams are unclear, and there are no visible partnerships or certifications. The lack of contact details and policies suggests the site may be in early development or used primarily for embedding third-party content or advertising.

Security posture

The security maturity level of the website is low. Key vulnerabilities include absence of DNSSEC, missing security headers (such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, HSTS), and use of external iframes with obfuscated parameters that may pose privacy risks. No incident response or security policy information is available. The site uses HTTPS but with basic SSL configuration. There is no evidence of compliance with GDPR or other data protection regulations. Overall, the site is at risk of security and privacy issues that could impact users and business reputation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS to protect against common web attacks.
  3. Develop and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  4. Remove or audit third-party iframes and tracking pixels to reduce privacy risks and improve site performance.
  5. Add clear business contact information and security incident response contacts to enhance credibility and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
HTML, JavaScript
Performance
slow
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
l.cdn-fileserver.com
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly consists of an embedded iframe from an external domain.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details provided on the site.
  4. Use of tracking pixels and external iframe with obfuscated parameters suggests aggressive tracking or ad-related behavior.
  5. No security headers or DNSSEC enabled, indicating weak security posture.
  6. Domain is recently registered with no privacy protection, but no clear business identity is presented.
  7. Website lacks professional design, content, and navigation structure.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML and JavaScript without any detected CMS or modern frameworks. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified beyond the registrar information. Performance appears slow due to embedded external iframes and tracking scripts. Mobile optimization and accessibility are minimal. SEO optimization is poor with no meta tags or structured data present. The site lacks modern technical best practices and would benefit from modernization and improved infrastructure.
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 inquirygrid.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 inquirygrid.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.