Skip to main content

Security report for linkgraph.com

LinkGraph · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

LinkGraph is an award-winning SEO and digital marketing company specializing in SEO optimization and high-authority link building services. The company targets businesses seeking to improve their online presence and brand visibility through expert SEO strategies. The website is professionally designed, leveraging WordPress and Elementor, and integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools such as HubSpot, Microsoft Clarity, and Facebook Pixel, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented, but lacks explicit security headers and published security policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy, though the professional web presence suggests a legitimate business. Overall, the site is well-optimized for SEO and user experience but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security disclosures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 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. 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';…
  2. 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 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

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

Keep watching linkgraph.com

This scan found 20 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
35
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention linkgraph.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
217
Employees
0
Customers
217
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
12%

5 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for linkgraph.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

LinkGraph positions itself as a leading SEO service provider with a focus on white hat link building and digital marketing solutions. Its market positioning is strengthened by awards and a strong social media presence. The business model revolves around service delivery to other businesses, likely generating revenue through SEO campaigns and link building contracts. The company uses advanced marketing tools and tracking technologies to optimize campaigns and measure performance. The lack of visible contact information and corporate registration details limits full business intelligence assessment. The company appears to operate in the technology sector with a medium-sized footprint.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates cookie consent mechanisms, reflecting compliance with basic security and privacy standards. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The extensive use of third-party scripts increases the attack surface and necessitates vigilant monitoring. The missing WHOIS data is a notable risk factor, potentially indicating privacy protection or domain registration issues. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with better transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to enhance transparency and compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen web security.
  3. Publish explicit security and incident response policies, including contact channels for security incidents.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and trustworthiness.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize vulnerabilities and privacy risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
LinkGraph
Description
Award-winning SEO experts, LinkGraph, specialize in SEO and digital marketing solutions for optimal online performance and brand visibility.
Key services
SEO optimization, Link building, Digital marketing solutions
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Fonts, jQuery, Elementor, HubSpot, Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow, Facebook Pixel, Google Tag Manager, Visual Website Optimizer
Frameworks
WordPress, Elementor
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • Use of security and analytics scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow, HubSpot Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
HubSpot Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, HubSpot Ads Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, Mouseflow
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Visual Website Optimizer
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design
  2. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented and active
  4. No visible privacy policy or terms of service pages detected
  5. Multiple third-party marketing and analytics tools integrated
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  8. WHOIS data is missing or domain unregistered, which is unusual for a professional business site
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Elementor page builder, integrating modern web technologies including Google Fonts, jQuery, and multiple analytics and marketing scripts such as HubSpot, Microsoft Clarity, and Facebook Pixel. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO meta tags implemented. Accessibility features are basic but present. The site uses a cookie consent banner indicating awareness of privacy regulations. Hosting provider details are not explicitly found. The technical stack is modern and suitable for a marketing agency, though some technical debt may exist due to multiple third-party integrations requiring ongoing maintenance.
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. 74/100Medium27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with linkgraph.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 linkgraph.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.