Skip to main content

Security report for itoms.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website itoms.com currently presents a Cloudflare security verification challenge page, preventing access to its actual content. This indicates the site is protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) and uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 to mitigate automated access and bots. Due to this blocking, no business-specific content, contact information, or policies are accessible for analysis. The domain is well-established, created in 1997, and registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC, with DNS hosted on Cloudflare, indicating a legitimate and professional setup. However, the absence of DNSSEC and visible security headers suggests areas for security enhancement. The lack of visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies and contact details limits the ability to assess compliance and business credibility. Overall, the site’s security posture benefits from WAF protection but lacks transparency and accessible content for full evaluation.

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

8 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
    • 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

  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

    • 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 itoms.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. 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
37
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
61

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

Given the content is blocked by a security challenge, no direct business intelligence can be derived from the website content. The domain age and registrar information suggest a mature entity, but no information about market positioning, services, or partnerships is available. The use of Cloudflare DNS and reCAPTCHA indicates a focus on security and bot mitigation. Without accessible content, insights into business model, revenue streams, or customer segments cannot be determined.

Security posture

The website employs Cloudflare’s WAF and Google reCAPTCHA v3, which are strong indicators of a proactive security posture against automated threats and abuse. However, the absence of DNSSEC and no visible security headers in the provided HTML content are weaknesses. The domain status flags (clientDeleteProhibited, etc.) provide additional protection against unauthorized domain changes. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, which is a gap in transparency and security readiness. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with enhanced DNS security and published security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS integrity and security.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible to visitors.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Provide visible contact information and incident response channels to improve trust and compliance.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to enhance security transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. Page is a Cloudflare security verification challenge page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 and minimal content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Cloudflare DNS
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by Cloudflare security verification challenge.
  2. No business or contact information is visible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. Only a single form with Google reCAPTCHA token field is present.
  5. No visible metadata such as Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data.
  6. No email addresses, phone numbers, or social media links found.
  7. Website appears to be protected by Cloudflare WAF with invisible reCAPTCHA.
  8. No security headers detected in provided HTML content.
  9. Domain is old and registered with reputable registrar.
  10. DNSSEC is not enabled which is a security improvement opportunity.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses modern front-end technologies including Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. DNS is managed via Cloudflare, a reputable provider offering performance and security benefits. The HTML content is minimal due to the security challenge, limiting performance and SEO analysis. Mobile optimization appears basic but present. No CMS or backend technologies are detectable from the provided data. The site lacks metadata such as Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data, which could improve SEO and content discoverability. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but underutilized due to the blocking mechanism.
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 itoms.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 itoms.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.