Skip to main content

Security report for interactcp.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The analyzed website is a login portal for a service branded as iCC, likely related to Interact Cloud Control or a similar business platform. The page is minimalistic, focused solely on user authentication, with no additional business or policy information presented. The technical infrastructure includes modern web technologies such as Bootstrap, jQuery, and ASP.NET Core (.NET 6.0), indicating a contemporary development stack. The site is accessible without any web application firewall or security challenge blocking, allowing full content analysis. Security measures include the use of anti-forgery tokens and password input best practices, but lack visible security headers and privacy policies, which are areas for improvement. The absence of WHOIS data for the subdomain is typical and does not indicate risk, but limits domain trust assessment. Overall, the site is functional but basic in content and security posture.

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

5 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

  2. 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 interactcp.com

This scan found 19 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
57
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
73

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

The business behind the site appears to operate in the technology sector, providing cloud or control panel services, possibly targeting RV or outdoor recreation industries given the partner domain rvingplanet.com. The business model likely involves subscription or account-based access to management tools. Market positioning is unclear due to limited public content. The partnership with rvingplanet.com suggests a niche market focus. No direct revenue streams or detailed business information are disclosed on this login page. Growth indicators and strategic partnerships cannot be fully assessed from the available data.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate. The site uses HTTPS (implied by URL scheme), includes anti-forgery tokens, and disables password autocomplete, which are positive controls. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces defense-in-depth. No visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps, particularly regarding GDPR. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not present, limiting transparency. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security headers, documented policies, and improved user trust signals.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS to strengthen security posture.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Add visible contact and incident response information to support security transparency.
  4. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate risks.
  5. Enhance website content with business information and trust indicators to improve credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, .NET 6.0
Frameworks
ASP.NET Core
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of anti-forgery token in form (__RequestVerificationToken)
  • Password input field with autocomplete off

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a login page for iCC (Interact Cloud Control or similar)
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on this page
  3. No contact information or business details present
  4. Uses standard Bootstrap and jQuery libraries
  5. Form includes anti-forgery token indicating some security awareness
  6. No visible analytics or tracking scripts detected
  7. External links limited to company-related domains
  8. No security headers detected in provided data
  9. No WHOIS data available for subdomain, typical for subdomains
  10. No adult or explicit content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs a modern tech stack with Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for client-side scripting, and ASP.NET Core (.NET 6.0) as the backend framework. The page loads standard CSS and JS libraries from internal and company asset domains, indicating controlled resource management. Performance is moderate with no heavy scripts or external analytics detected. Mobile optimization is good due to Bootstrap usage. Accessibility is basic, with form labels and placeholders present but no advanced ARIA attributes detected. SEO optimization is minimal given the page's nature as a login portal. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but basic, suitable for a secure login interface.
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 interactcp.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 interactcp.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.