Skip to main content

Security report for mediaboard.com

Mediaboard.com · Media · N/a

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

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

Mediaboard.com is a mature SaaS platform specializing in media intelligence, PR, and marketing tools. The website positions itself as an all-in-one PR platform offering media monitoring and press release publishing services. The target audience primarily includes PR professionals and marketing teams seeking comprehensive media monitoring solutions. The business appears to be well-established, with a domain age dating back to 1998, indicating longevity in the market. Technically, the website is built on WordPress CMS using Elementor for page building and Yoast SEO for search engine optimization. It integrates multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools such as Microsoft Clarity, Dreamdata, Intercom, LinkedIn Insight, and Google Tag Manager, reflecting a modern digital marketing infrastructure. Hosting and DNS services leverage Cloudflare, providing performance and security benefits, although DNSSEC is not enabled. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and has domain registration locks to prevent unauthorized changes. However, there is a lack of visible security headers and no published security policy or incident response contacts. Cookie consent is managed effectively via Cookiebot, indicating some level of privacy compliance, though no explicit privacy policy or terms of service were found in the provided content. No vulnerabilities or suspicious activities were detected. Overall, the website demonstrates a good balance of business credibility and technical implementation but could improve privacy compliance and security posture by publishing clear policies, enabling DNSSEC, and implementing security headers. These enhancements would strengthen trust and reduce potential risks.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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 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"

  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 mediaboard.com

This scan found 17 issues across 5 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
30
Email security
75
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
78

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

Mediaboard.com operates in the media sector, focusing on providing media monitoring and PR tools through a SaaS business model. The company targets PR and marketing professionals, offering services that streamline media intelligence and press release distribution. The long domain age suggests a stable market presence. The website's integration with multiple analytics and marketing platforms indicates a data-driven approach to customer engagement and growth. The absence of explicit contact information and privacy policies suggests areas for operational improvement. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified, indicating a focused standalone business. The platform's positioning as an all-in-one PR tool suggests competitive differentiation in the media intelligence market.

Security posture

The website exhibits a moderate security posture with HTTPS enabled and domain registration protections in place. The use of Cloudflare DNS and CDN services adds a layer of security and performance. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS reduces the overall security effectiveness. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts were found, which may hinder timely vulnerability reporting and incident management. The extensive use of third-party tracking and marketing scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. The cookie consent mechanism via Cookiebot is a positive privacy compliance indicator. Overall, the site is secure but would benefit from enhanced security controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the website footer or main navigation.
  3. Implement standard security headers including Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Add a security policy page and provide incident response contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  5. Review and minimize third-party tracking scripts to reduce privacy risks and improve site performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Mediaboard.com
Description
Media Intelligence tool for media monitoring. Publish and send press releases through Mediaboard Connect – all in one PR platform. Free trial.
Key services
Media monitoring, Press release publishing, PR platform services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Elementor, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Microsoft Clarity, Intercom, Dreamdata analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Seznam tracking
Frameworks
Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited and other EPP locks

Analytics and tracking

Services
Microsoft Clarity, Dreamdata, Google Tag Manager, LinkedIn Insight, Seznam tracking
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Intercom, Microsoft Clarity, Dreamdata, LinkedIn Insight, Seznam tracking
Marketing tools
Intercom, Dreamdata
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. Uses WordPress CMS with Elementor and Yoast SEO
  3. Cookie consent managed by Cookiebot with visible dialog
  4. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in provided content
  5. Extensive use of third-party analytics and marketing scripts
  6. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML content provided
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  8. Domain WHOIS data is transparent and consistent with business age
  9. No suspicious or malicious indicators detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress platform with Elementor page builder and Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a modern and flexible CMS environment. It uses jQuery and multiple analytics and marketing scripts including Microsoft Clarity, Dreamdata, Intercom, LinkedIn Insight, and Google Tag Manager. Hosting and DNS are managed via Cloudflare, providing CDN and security benefits. The site shows good mobile optimization and SEO practices but lacks advanced accessibility features. Performance is moderate, likely impacted by multiple external scripts. There is an opportunity to optimize loading times and reduce technical debt by auditing third-party integrations and improving 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 77/100Low26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with mediaboard.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 mediaboard.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.