Skip to main content

Security report for locid.com

LocID · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

LocID is a technology company offering a fixed geospatial identifier solution designed to provide advertisers, DSPs, and publishers with a stable and privacy-safe alternative to IP-based targeting. The website presents a professional and modern digital presence built on WordPress with Elementor, integrating various marketing and analytics tools such as Google Analytics, Hotjar, and Cookiebot for compliance and user tracking. The business targets advertising technology sectors, focusing on privacy and data protection in geospatial targeting. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness. The site lacks explicit privacy policy and terms of service pages, and no direct contact information is provided, which impacts business credibility and compliance perception. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, but could be improved with additional security headers and published security policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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. 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

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

Keep watching locid.com

This scan found 24 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
47
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
67

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

LocID operates in the niche technology sector of geospatial identifiers for advertising targeting, positioning itself as a privacy-conscious alternative to traditional IP-based methods. The business model revolves around providing stable identifiers to advertisers and publishers, likely generating revenue through licensing or service fees. The website's integration with multiple marketing and tracking services indicates an active approach to user engagement and data analytics. The lack of WHOIS data and contact information suggests potential gaps in transparency and trust, which could affect partnerships and customer confidence. No evidence of parent or subsidiary companies was found, indicating a standalone small-sized enterprise. The company branding is consistent and the content quality is good, supporting a professional market presence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security posture with HTTPS enabled and a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR principles. However, no explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, which are recommended best practices. There is no published security policy or incident response contact information, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file was found, limiting transparency in security management. The use of multiple third-party scripts introduces potential risk vectors, though no immediate vulnerabilities were identified. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable concern for domain legitimacy and could indicate privacy protection or registration issues. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be enhanced with additional policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a clear and accessible privacy policy and terms of service pages to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add explicit security headers (e.g., Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide direct contact information including business and security contacts to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
  4. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
LocID
Description
LocID is a fixed geospatial identifier that gives advertisers, DSPs, and publishers a stable, privacy-safe alternative to IP-based targeting.
Key services
fixed geospatial identifier, privacy-safe targeting alternative to IP-based targeting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.2, Elementor 3.27.4, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Hotjar, YouTube iframe API, jQuery 3.7.1
Frameworks
WordPress, Elementor
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google
Tracking pixels
Hotjar, Cookiebot, 6sc.co
Marketing tools
Warmly widget
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, which is unusual for an active commercial website.
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented and detailed cookie information is provided.
  4. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found in the provided content.
  5. No direct contact information such as emails or phone numbers found on the homepage.
  6. Website uses modern WordPress CMS with Elementor page builder.
  7. Multiple third-party scripts for analytics, marketing, and tracking are used.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  9. Content is business-focused, targeting advertisers and publishers with privacy-safe geospatial identifiers.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform using the Elementor page builder, which facilitates responsive and visually appealing design. It integrates multiple third-party services including Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Cookiebot, and YouTube iframe API for analytics, marketing, and user engagement. The site loads multiple CSS and JS assets efficiently, though performance is moderate likely due to the number of external scripts. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO is supported by Rank Math plugin with proper meta tags and structured data in JSON-LD format. Accessibility features are basic but present. No hosting provider information was identified from the content. The technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from performance optimization and enhanced security configurations.
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 locid.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 locid.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.