Skip to main content

Security report for mindbench.com

Mindbench · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Mindbench appears to be a small business website with a basic homepage and limited publicly available business information. The site uses Bootstrap for styling and New Relic for performance and error monitoring, indicating some level of technical maturity. However, the lack of WHOIS data and domain registration information raises concerns about the domain's legitimacy or registration status. The website lacks visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, and no contact information is provided, which limits trust and compliance assessment. Security posture is minimal with no detected security headers or advanced configurations. Overall, the site is accessible but provides limited business and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 100 · Medium
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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Facebook, LinkedIn, Cloudflare

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

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching mindbench.com

This scan found 17 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
77
Security headers
70
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
75

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

The website targets a general audience but does not clearly define its business model, market position, or key services beyond the homepage label. There are no visible trust indicators such as certifications or testimonials. The external links are primarily to font providers and New Relic, with no identified partners or subsidiaries. The business sector is unclear, and no company founding date or parent company information is available. The content quality and branding consistency are basic, suggesting a small or early-stage business presence online.

Security posture

The security maturity level is low due to the absence of WHOIS domain registration data, lack of security headers, and no visible privacy or cookie policies. The site uses HTTPS (implied by canonical URL), but SSL configuration details are unknown. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found. The use of New Relic indicates monitoring capabilities, but no advanced security best practices are evident. The site should improve transparency and implement standard security headers and policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Register or verify domain WHOIS information to improve legitimacy and trust.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident communication.
  4. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact to enhance security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Mindbench
Description
Homepage
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 3.2.0, New Relic Browser monitoring
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
New Relic Browser
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
New Relic
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating possible domain registration issues.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage.
  4. No explicit contact information such as emails or phone numbers found in the homepage content.
  5. Website uses New Relic for performance and error monitoring.
  6. Design and content quality are basic with minimal business information.
  7. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected in the provided data.
  8. No evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response information.
  9. No certifications or compliance indicators found.
  10. External links mostly to fonts and New Relic domains; no suspicious domains detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 3.2.0 for styling and New Relic Browser for performance monitoring and error tracking. The site loads fonts from volcanic.cloud and Google Fonts. The HTML content is valid but basic, with moderate performance and mobile optimization. Accessibility and SEO optimizations are minimal but present. No CMS or hosting provider information is detected. The site does not appear to use advanced frameworks or platforms. Technical debt may exist due to older Bootstrap version and lack of modern security practices.
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 mindbench.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 mindbench.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.