Skip to main content

Security report for mscrm-addons.com

PTM EDV-Systeme GmbH · Technology · Austria

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

PTM EDV-Systeme GmbH operates the website mscrm-addons.com, providing specialized add-ons and solutions for Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Platform users. The company offers a mature product portfolio addressing document creation, capacity management, and activity handling, targeting businesses using Microsoft technologies. The website demonstrates a professional presence with clear business information, customer testimonials, and partner programs, positioning itself as a trusted provider in the technology sector. Technically, the site is built on ASP.NET with the DNN CMS platform and integrates modern JavaScript libraries and Google services for analytics and user interaction. However, a critical security gap exists due to the absence of a valid SSL/TLS certificate, resulting in no HTTPS support and exposing users to potential risks. Privacy compliance is addressed with cookie consent and a privacy policy, and contact channels are well established. Overall, while the business and content quality are strong, the lack of HTTPS significantly impacts the security posture and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
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

8 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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 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';…

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

Keep watching mscrm-addons.com

This scan found 18 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
0
Security headers
40
Email security
50
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
45

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 company targets Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Platform users with productivity-enhancing add-ons, leveraging a business model based on software sales, free trials, and partner collaborations. The domain age and WHOIS data confirm a stable and mature business presence. The website's integration of customer success stories and partner programs indicates a focus on building trust and expanding market reach. Marketing efforts include webinars and newsletters, supported by Google Analytics and Tag Manager for user insights. The company maintains regional support offices in Europe and the USA, enhancing customer service capabilities. No suspicious or privacy-protected WHOIS data suggests transparency and legitimacy. The business is well-positioned in the technology sector with a medium-sized operational scale.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of HTTPS, which is a critical vulnerability. Although security headers like HSTS and X-Content-Type-Options are present, the missing TLS protocols and cipher suites severely undermine transport security. The use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms and HttpOnly, Secure, and SameSite cookie flags are positive practices. No known vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE were detected. The site lacks a security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page, and no incident response contacts are provided. Overall, the security maturity is low, and immediate remediation is required to protect user data and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Acquire and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Configure the web server to support modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and strong cipher suites.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and certificate transparency compliance for enhanced SSL security.
  4. Add a security.txt file and establish clear incident response contact channels.
  5. Regularly audit and update security headers and cookie policies to align with best practices.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature ASP.NET 4.0 framework using the DNN CMS platform, integrating jQuery, jQuery UI, SweetAlert, and Google APIs for enhanced user experience. Hosting appears to be on AWS infrastructure. The site includes responsive design elements and mobile optimization. SEO is supported by meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance metrics are unavailable, but the presence of multiple JavaScript libraries and external resources suggests moderate complexity. The absence of HTTPS and modern TLS support is a significant technical debt. The site uses Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking, and an embedded email subscription form from a third-party provider. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but requires modernization in security protocols.
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 mscrm-addons.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 mscrm-addons.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.