Skip to main content

Security report for internetbrands.com

Internet Brands · Technology · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Internet Brands operates as an online media and e-commerce platform provider, leveraging the Wix website builder for its digital presence. The website shows moderate technical maturity with standard cookie consent and Google Tag Manager integration, but lacks visible privacy policies, contact information, and WHOIS transparency. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but missing advanced security headers and incident response details. Overall, the site appears functional but lacks comprehensive compliance and trust signals, which may impact user confidence and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
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

3 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.

    • 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

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching internetbrands.com

This scan found 19 issues across 5 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
69
Security headers
40
Email security
75
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
78

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

Internet Brands positions itself as an established player in the technology sector focusing on online media and e-commerce. The business model centers on operating multiple websites and communities, targeting both consumers and businesses. However, the lack of detailed business information, contact data, and public certifications limits insight into its market positioning and growth strategies. The use of Wix suggests a preference for rapid deployment over custom infrastructure, which may affect scalability and control.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, indicating baseline security awareness. However, absence of security headers, vulnerability disclosure policies, and incident response contacts suggests limited security maturity. The lack of WHOIS data raises concerns about domain registration transparency. No evidence of advanced security frameworks or certifications was found. These gaps could expose the business to compliance risks and reduce stakeholder trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publicly link a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service.
  2. Publish contact information including security incident response contacts.
  3. Enhance security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Obtain and display relevant security certifications to boost trust.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly accessible.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Internet Brands
Description
Internet Brands is a company that operates online media, community, and e-commerce websites.
Key services
Online media websites, Community platforms, E-commerce services
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix.com Website Builder, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
OneTrust Cookie Consent
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and cookie consent.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for an established domain.
  3. No visible contact information or business registration details on the homepage.
  4. Privacy policy page not found or not linked visibly.
  5. Cookie consent is implemented via OneTrust.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. No explicit security headers detected in provided data.
  8. Website content is minimal and mostly technical scripts and styles, no rich business content visible in provided HTML snippet.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, utilizing Wix's hosting and content delivery infrastructure. It integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics and OneTrust for cookie consent management. The site shows moderate performance and mobile optimization but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. The technical stack is modern but limited by the constraints of the Wix environment. There is opportunity to improve technical SEO, accessibility compliance, and security hardening to better support business objectives.
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 internetbrands.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 internetbrands.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.