Skip to main content

Security report for intentwave.com

Intentwave · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Intentwave is a technology company specializing in consent-based visitor identification and data enrichment services. Their platform captures anonymous website visitors and reveals detailed business information such as name, company, title, business email, LinkedIn profile, and phone number. The company targets B2B clients seeking enhanced lead generation and visitor insights. The website is built using Framer and integrates tracking technologies including Facebook and TikTok pixels to support marketing and analytics efforts. While the site demonstrates a professional design and basic mobile optimization, it lacks critical compliance documentation such as privacy and cookie policies, and does not provide contact or security incident response information. The absence of WHOIS data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and transparency. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but could benefit from enhanced security headers and compliance disclosures to improve trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of intentwave.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

5 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 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  3. 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching intentwave.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.

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
40
Email security
83
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
72

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

Intentwave operates in the technology sector, focusing on SaaS solutions for visitor identification and consent technology. Their business model revolves around providing enriched visitor data to businesses for marketing and sales optimization. The company appears to be a small-sized entity with no publicly disclosed founding year or parent/subsidiary relationships. The website content is targeted at business users interested in lead generation and visitor analytics. The use of advanced tracking pixels indicates a focus on digital marketing effectiveness. However, the lack of visible contact details and compliance policies may hinder customer trust and limit market penetration. No partnerships or related domains were identified from the provided data.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS and includes tracking scripts from reputable platforms like Facebook and TikTok, indicating a baseline security posture. However, no explicit security headers were detected, and there is no published security policy or incident response information. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were identified in the analyzed content, but the lack of transparency and registrant information in WHOIS data reduces overall trust. The security score is moderate, with recommendations to implement security headers, publish compliance documentation, and provide clear contact channels for security incidents.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies including GDPR compliance details.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Provide clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers for support and security incidents.
  4. Verify and disclose domain registration details to improve legitimacy and trust.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking pixels to ensure no vulnerabilities or privacy issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Intentwave
Description
Utilizing our consent technology, we capture your anonymous visitors, revealing their name, company, title, business email, LinkedIn profile, phone number, and much more.
Key services
Consent technology, Anonymous visitor identification, Data enrichment (name, company, title, email, LinkedIn, phone)
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Framer (generator), Facebook Pixel, TikTok Pixel, JavaScript tracking scripts
Frameworks
Framer
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by https URL)
  • Use of consent technology for visitor data capture

Analytics and tracking

Services
TikTok Analytics, Facebook Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, TikTok Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel, TikTok Pixel, IntentWave tracking script
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible new registration or privacy protection.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found on the site.
  5. Website uses modern tracking pixels from Facebook and TikTok.
  6. Website built with Framer and uses custom tracking scripts.
  7. Content is business-focused on visitor identification and data enrichment.
  8. No explicit security headers detected in the provided data.
  9. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response info available.
  10. No certifications or compliance frameworks mentioned.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Framer, a modern web design tool, and integrates third-party tracking pixels from Facebook and TikTok. Hosting appears to be via IntentWave's own CDN. The site shows good mobile optimization and basic SEO meta tags but lacks advanced accessibility features and security headers. Performance is moderate with no evident broken elements. The technical stack is contemporary but could be improved by adding security best practices and compliance-related content. No CMS other than Framer was detected. The site does not expose any forms or collect data directly on the analyzed page, limiting attack surface but also reducing user engagement options.
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. 74/100 +2Medium28 findingsView report
  2. 72/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with intentwave.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 intentwave.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.