Skip to main content

Security report for mfb.li

Skeepers · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Skeepers operates a customer experience platform, as evidenced by the backend login portal branded with their name and logo. The website serves primarily as an access point for users to sign in, including support for Single Sign-On (SSO) via SAML2, indicating enterprise-grade user management. The technical infrastructure leverages common web technologies such as jQuery, Bootstrap, and third-party widgets like Zendesk and Stonly for support and user guidance. However, the site lacks visible privacy and cookie policies, which are critical for compliance and user trust. Security measures are basic, with no explicit security headers or anti-CSRF tokens detected, though HTTPS is implied by the URL scheme. Overall, the site is functional but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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

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

Keep watching mfb.li

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
52
Security headers
85
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
73

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

Skeepers appears positioned as a technology provider specializing in customer experience management solutions, targeting business users and clients who require backend access to their platform. The business model likely revolves around SaaS offerings with user account management and integration capabilities such as SSO. The absence of public-facing business information on this login page limits detailed insights, but the consistent branding and use of enterprise technologies suggest a medium-sized company with a focus on B2B services. The integration of Zendesk and Stonly indicates a commitment to customer support and onboarding. No direct partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the provided data.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is moderate but has notable gaps. While HTTPS usage is assumed, the absence of security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces protection against common web attacks. Forms lack visible anti-CSRF tokens, increasing risk of cross-site request forgery. The password field includes a toggle visibility feature, which is user-friendly but should be implemented securely. The presence of SSO with SAML2 is a positive security indicator. No incident response or security policy information is publicly available, limiting transparency. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security controls and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies accessible from the login page.
  2. Add and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Incorporate anti-CSRF tokens in all forms to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
  4. Enhance SSL/TLS configuration and regularly audit for vulnerabilities.
  5. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels to improve trust and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Skeepers
Description
Skeepers appears to be a company providing customer experience (cx) related services or software, indicated by the branding and login portal. The site is a backend login page for users, likely clients or employees, to access a platform related to customer experience management.
Key services
Customer experience platform, User account management, Single Sign-On (SSO) integration
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, FontAwesome, Summernote, Moment.js, Slick Carousel, iCheck, Bootstrap Tour, Zendesk Widget, Stonly Widget
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL scheme)
  • Password input with toggle visibility
  • SSO login option with SAML2

Analytics and tracking

Services
Mixpanel (implied by tracking code comment)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
Zendesk, Stonly
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a backend login portal for Skeepers customer experience platform.
  2. No public privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on this page.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers visible on this page.
  4. Uses multiple JavaScript libraries and third-party widgets (Zendesk, Stonly).
  5. No explicit security headers or CSP meta tags detected.
  6. No visible anti-CSRF tokens in forms.
  7. SSO login form supports SAML2 protocol.
  8. No adult or explicit content detected.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  10. WHOIS data is privacy protected; no registrant details available.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a mature and common technology stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and various plugins for UI and UX enhancements. Third-party integrations with Zendesk and Stonly provide support and onboarding capabilities. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile use but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. The login forms are standard but could be improved with better security controls. Hosting details and CMS usage are not evident. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but basic, with room for modernization and security hardening.
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 mfb.li. 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 mfb.li.

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.