Skip to main content

Security report for ndchost.com

Network Data Center Host, Inc. · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Network Data Center Host, Inc. operates a professional web hosting service offering a variety of hosting solutions including shared website hosting, WordPress hosting, cloud servers, dedicated servers, cPanel licensing, and SSL certificates. The company emphasizes fast, stable, and easy-to-use services with 24x7 support, targeting individuals and businesses seeking reliable hosting since 2002. Their market position is that of an established small hosting provider with a consistent brand and multiple social media channels to engage customers. Technically, the website uses modern tracking and live chat technologies such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Tawk.to, with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. However, the absence of CMS detection and hosting provider details limits deeper infrastructure insights. Security posture is moderate; HTTPS is implied but no explicit security headers or incident response policies are published. The lack of WHOIS data is a notable concern, reducing trustworthiness despite the professional presentation. Overall, the website is accessible, safe, and business-focused but would benefit from improved transparency and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

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 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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 ndchost.com

This scan found 26 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
72
Security headers
25
Email security
75
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
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

The company operates in the technology sector, specifically in web hosting and server infrastructure services. Their business model is service-based, generating revenue from hosting plans and licensing fees. The target market includes small to medium businesses and individual website owners. The company leverages partnerships such as cplicensing.net for cPanel licenses. Growth indicators include a broad service portfolio and active social media presence. However, the missing WHOIS data and lack of detailed business registration information may impact credibility. The company maintains a customer support focus with 24x7 availability and multiple support channels. Strategic observations suggest a need for enhanced compliance and security transparency to strengthen market position.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The website uses HTTPS and includes no visible sensitive data exposure. However, no security headers such as Content Security Policy or HSTS were detected, and no published security or incident response policies exist. There is no evidence of GDPR compliance mechanisms like cookie consent banners despite the use of tracking scripts. The absence of WHOIS data and registrant information is a risk factor for domain legitimacy. The company does not publish vulnerability disclosure or data protection officer information, indicating gaps in compliance and security culture. Overall, the security posture is functional but lacks depth and transparency, which could expose the business to reputational and operational risks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive security policy including incident response procedures.
  2. Add cookie consent mechanisms to comply with privacy regulations and improve transparency.
  3. Enhance security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to strengthen website security.
  4. Update WHOIS registration details to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
  5. Publish vulnerability disclosure and data protection officer contact information to demonstrate compliance and security culture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Network Data Center Host, Inc.
Description
Providing fast, stable, easy to use web hosting since 2002 with 24x7 support.
Key services
Website Hosting, WordPress Hosting, Cloud Servers, Dedicated Servers, cPanel Licensing, SSL Certificates
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Tawk.to live chat, FontAwesome, Google Fonts (Roboto)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of HTTPS implied by external scripts (Google Analytics, Tawk.to)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Tawk.to live chat
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual for an active commercial domain.
  3. Website offers a broad range of hosting services with clear pricing.
  4. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite use of tracking scripts.
  5. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  6. Contact information limited to phone numbers; no emails found.
  7. Social media presence is strong with multiple official channels linked.
  8. No forms detected on the homepage or main content for data collection.
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs a modern technology stack including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Tawk.to live chat, FontAwesome icons, and Google Fonts. The HTML structure is valid with responsive design elements ensuring good mobile optimization. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. SEO is supported by meta tags and structured navigation. No CMS or hosting provider details were detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. The absence of security headers and cookie consent mechanisms indicates technical debt in security and privacy compliance. There are no visible forms on the homepage, reducing attack surface but also limiting user data collection. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.
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 ndchost.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 ndchost.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.