Skip to main content

Security report for ipartner.company

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 3 other checks.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'ipartner.company' presents minimal content consisting solely of a styled page with a single heading and no additional textual or interactive elements. There is no metadata, structured data, or contact information available, indicating the site is likely a placeholder or under development. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies further suggests a lack of compliance and maturity. Technically, the site does not utilize any detectable frameworks, scripts, or modern web technologies, and no security headers or HTTPS information is available, raising concerns about security posture. The WHOIS data is incomplete, with no registrant or domain age information, limiting trust and legitimacy assessments. Overall, the site exhibits a low level of digital maturity and business credibility.

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

9 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 ipartner.company

This scan found 25 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
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
50

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

Due to the lack of business-related content, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be identified. The absence of contact details, social media presence, or partner links prevents analysis of the company's ecosystem or growth indicators. The domain appears to be newly registered or privacy protected without justification, which may indicate a nascent or inactive business entity. No certifications or trust signals are present to support credibility.

Security posture

The website lacks HTTPS/SSL, security headers, and any visible security best practices. No incident response or security policy information is provided. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No vulnerabilities are explicitly detected from the content, but the minimal technical implementation and lack of security controls represent significant risks. The security score is very low, and immediate improvements are necessary to establish a secure and compliant web presence.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure communications.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with data protection laws.
  3. Add clear contact information including email, phone, and physical address for business credibility.
  4. Incorporate standard security headers and conduct a security audit to identify vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance website content quality, navigation, and mobile optimization to improve user experience and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is extremely minimal with only a styled page and a single heading 'ipartner.company'.
  2. No metadata such as meta description, keywords, Open Graph, or JSON-LD structured data found.
  3. No forms, no contact information, no external links, no social media links detected.
  4. No scripts or external libraries detected in the HTML source.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available from provided data.
  6. WHOIS data is incomplete and registrar information is limited to Identity Digital Inc.
  7. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  8. No business or security policies present.
  9. No analytics or advertising/tracking technologies detected.
  10. Website appears to be a placeholder or under construction with no meaningful content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML with inline CSS styles embedding base64 images for backgrounds. No JavaScript, external libraries, or CMS platforms are detected. The site lacks meta tags, Open Graph, or structured data, limiting SEO and social media integration. Performance is likely moderate due to embedded images but mobile optimization and accessibility are poor. The technical infrastructure appears minimal and outdated, with significant opportunities for modernization and improvement.
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 ipartner.company. 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 ipartner.company.

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.