Skip to main content

Security report for inscientiafides.com

In Scientia Fides · Healthcare · San Marino

Partial score · DNS & email only

39/100

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

In Scientia Fides is a specialized healthcare biobank located in San Marino, offering private stem cell preservation services with international FACTNetCord accreditation. The company targets families and parents seeking biological insurance for their children through stem cell storage. The website is professionally designed, content-rich, and provides comprehensive information about services, accreditations, and procedures. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with common marketing and analytics tools integrated, but lacks HTTPS security, which is a critical vulnerability. Privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms are well implemented, reflecting good GDPR compliance. Overall, the business presents a trustworthy and professional image but must urgently address its lack of SSL to improve security posture and user trust.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

2 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching inscientiafides.com

This scan found 6 issues across 4 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
0
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
20
Average
39

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

The company holds a strong market position as one of the few biobanks accredited by FACTNetCord, emphasizing quality and safety. Its business model revolves around private biological sample storage with medical consultancy and logistics support. The target audience is clearly defined, and the company maintains active social media channels for engagement. The website content and structure support lead generation and customer education effectively. However, the absence of HTTPS may impact customer confidence and SEO rankings. No parent or subsidiary companies are identified, indicating a focused small business operation.

Security posture

The website currently operates without a valid SSL certificate, exposing users to potential data interception risks. No modern TLS protocols or security headers like HSTS are enabled, and session management relies on basic PHPSESSID cookies without enhanced security flags. While no known vulnerabilities or malware are detected, the lack of HTTPS is a critical security gap. The site uses standard tracking pixels and analytics scripts, which require proper user consent management, which is partially addressed via cookie consent. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies are absent, indicating room for improvement in security governance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL/TLS certificate immediately to enable HTTPS and protect user data.
  2. Enable HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce secure connections.
  3. Upgrade server to support modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and 1.3) and disable insecure ones.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Establish and publish an incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure process.
  6. Regularly audit and update all plugins and third-party scripts to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  7. Enhance privacy compliance by providing detailed data retention and user rights information.
  8. Improve website performance metrics and accessibility features for better user experience.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website runs on Apache server with WordPress CMS version 6.8.1, utilizing Yoast SEO for optimization and jQuery for frontend scripting. It integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools including Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, and TikTok Pixel. Cookie consent is managed by the Pressidium Cookie Consent plugin. The site lacks HTTPS, which is a major technical deficiency. Performance data is missing, but inferred to be slow. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO practices are well implemented. Hosting provider is not explicitly identified but DNS records point to domaincontrol.com name servers and Microsoft Outlook mail exchange. The site uses standard WordPress themes and plugins without custom frameworks.
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 inscientiafides.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 inscientiafides.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.