Skip to main content

Security report for leadinfo.com

Leadinfo · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Leadinfo is a technology company offering a SaaS platform focused on B2B lead generation by identifying companies visiting client websites. Their platform includes tools such as Leadbot for conversion optimization, contact outreach, and integrations with other marketing and sales tools. The website is professionally designed, SEO optimized, and targets marketing and sales teams in B2B sectors. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with Elementor and uses multiple analytics and tracking services, managed with a cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR. Security posture is good with HTTPS and cookie consent, though explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not published. WHOIS data is unavailable, which slightly reduces transparency but the overall business presence and content quality indicate legitimacy. Recommendations include publishing security policies, improving WHOIS transparency, and enhancing contact information visibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 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

5 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 384-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 leadinfo.com

This scan found 18 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
82
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
85
Average
74

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

Leadinfo positions itself as a specialized B2B lead identification and conversion platform, leveraging website visitor data to grow sales funnels. Their business model is SaaS subscription-based, targeting medium-sized businesses and sales/marketing teams. The company demonstrates strong branding consistency and trust signals such as customer testimonials and partner logos. Their marketing ecosystem includes integrations and partner programs, indicating a collaborative growth strategy. The absence of detailed company registration data online suggests privacy protection or recent domain registration. The website content and structure support a mature digital marketing approach with clear calls to action and resource offerings.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses reputable third-party analytics and tracking tools with a cookie consent banner, indicating awareness of privacy and security compliance. However, no explicit security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure information is published, which are best practices for mature security posture. The lack of WHOIS transparency is a minor concern but not uncommon for privacy-conscious businesses. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Security headers are not explicitly visible but likely implemented at the server level. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by publishing formal policies and contact channels for security incidents.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  2. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Improve transparency by providing registrant or company registration information if possible.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility, including dedicated security and privacy contacts.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Leadinfo
Description
Grow your sales funnel and generate better leads. Start identifying B2B website visitors and reach out to them within Leadinfo's all-in-one platform.
Key services
Lead identification, Leadbot for conversion optimization, Contact outreach, Integrations with other platforms, Automated lead conversion
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, Iubenda cookie solution, Amplitude analytics, Mouseflow, Microsoft Clarity, Google Tag Manager, Font Awesome, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with Iubenda
  • Use of reputable analytics and tracking tools
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Amplitude, Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow, HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow, Amplitude, Reddit Pixel
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Amplitude, Mouseflow, Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Content is rich, professional, and targeted at B2B lead generation
  3. Strong SEO and metadata implementation
  4. Use of multiple analytics and tracking tools with cookie consent
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on main page
  6. WHOIS data unavailable, reducing transparency
  7. Good GDPR and cookie compliance visible
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies published
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Elementor page builder, leveraging modern web technologies including Google Fonts, Font Awesome, and multiple analytics platforms such as Amplitude, Microsoft Clarity, and Mouseflow. Cookie consent is managed via Iubenda, ensuring compliance with privacy regulations. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts and lazy loading of images. The technical stack is modern and well-integrated, though hosting provider details are not explicit. The site demonstrates good SEO practices with comprehensive metadata and structured data in JSON-LD format.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 74/100 +4Medium26 findingsView report
  2. 70/100 +7Medium28 findingsView report
  3. 63/100Medium28 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with leadinfo.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 leadinfo.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.