Skip to main content

Security report for ippeak.com

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

IPPeak is a provider of fast and reliable residential proxy services targeting businesses and individuals requiring proxy solutions. The website presents basic information about their proxy offerings but lacks detailed business and contact information. Technically, the site uses modern frontend technologies such as Tailwind CSS and integrates analytics tools like Microsoft Clarity and Google Analytics, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. However, the absence of privacy policies, terms of service, and contact details reflects gaps in compliance and user trust facilitation. Security posture is limited by lack of visible security headers and unknown SSL configuration, which should be addressed to enhance protection and trustworthiness. Overall, the domain's WHOIS data is unavailable, raising concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. Strategic improvements in compliance documentation, security practices, and business transparency are recommended to strengthen the company's online presence and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

8 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 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

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

Keep watching ippeak.com

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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
60

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

IPPeak operates in the technology sector as a residential proxy service provider. The business model focuses on offering proxy IP addresses to clients for various internet activities requiring residential IPs. The target market likely includes digital marketers, data scrapers, and cybersecurity professionals. The website lacks detailed information on company size, founding year, or parent/subsidiary relationships, limiting deeper business intelligence insights. The presence of tracking and analytics tools suggests an interest in user behavior analysis and marketing optimization. The absence of clear trust indicators such as certifications or client testimonials suggests the company is either new or has limited public market presence. Enhancing transparency and providing more comprehensive business information could improve market positioning and customer confidence.

Security posture

The security maturity of the IPPeak website is currently basic. The site is accessible without WAF or security challenge blocks, but no security headers were detected in the provided data, and SSL configuration details are unknown. The lack of privacy and cookie policies, as well as absence of contact information for incident response or data protection officers, indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No vulnerability disclosures or security certifications are evident. The use of modern JavaScript libraries and analytics tools introduces potential attack surfaces that require monitoring. To improve security posture, the company should implement comprehensive security headers, enforce HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS settings, publish privacy and cookie policies, and establish clear incident response contacts. These steps will reduce risk and enhance user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Configure and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Ensure HTTPS is properly configured with strong SSL/TLS settings and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS.
  4. Add clear contact information including support emails and incident response channels on the website.
  5. Obtain and display relevant security certifications or trust badges to enhance credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
IPPeak offers fast and reliable quality residential proxies services.
Key services
Residential proxies
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity
Frameworks
Tailwind CSS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating domain may be unregistered or privacy protected with no public data.
  3. No privacy policy, cookie policy, or terms of service found on the site.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the content.
  5. Website uses modern frontend technologies like Tailwind CSS and tracking tools like Microsoft Clarity and Google Analytics.
  6. Security headers and SSL configuration details are not available from provided data.
  7. Content is focused on residential proxy services with no adult or questionable content.
  8. Overall website quality and professionalism is basic with room for improvement in content and trust signals.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern frontend stack including Tailwind CSS for styling and integrates analytics tools such as Microsoft Clarity and Google Analytics via Google Tag Manager. The HTML content is well-structured but truncated in the provided data, limiting full analysis. No CMS or hosting provider information was identified. Performance appears moderate with mobile optimization rated as good. Accessibility and SEO optimizations are basic and could be improved. The absence of visible security headers and unknown SSL configuration represent technical risks. The site lacks forms or data collection fields in the analyzed content, reducing immediate data exposure risks. Overall, the technical infrastructure is adequate for a small technology service provider but requires enhancements in security and compliance features.
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 ippeak.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 ippeak.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.