Skip to main content

Security report for neopay.lt

Neopay · Finance · Lithuania

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Neopay is a Lithuania-based fintech company specializing in smart payment and financial solutions for online and physical retail businesses across Europe. Their product suite includes payment initiation, automated payouts, user verification, and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) services, targeting sectors such as e-commerce, utilities, and iGaming. The company positions itself as a technology-driven B2B payment solutions provider with a focus on API integrations and compliance with European financial standards. Technically, the website is built on the Webflow platform, leveraging modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Swiper.js, and Lottie animations. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, moderate performance, and basic accessibility features. SEO practices are adequately implemented with proper meta tags and structured navigation. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and includes security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of explicit privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies indicates gaps in compliance and transparency. Contact information is limited to a contact form without direct emails or phone numbers, which may affect user trust. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy front for a fintech business but requires improvements in privacy compliance and user contact transparency to enhance trust and regulatory adherence. Strategic recommendations include adding comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, implementing consent mechanisms, and publishing incident response and vulnerability disclosure information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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. 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 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 neopay.lt

This scan found 22 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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
72

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

Neopay operates in the competitive European fintech market, focusing on payment processing and financial transaction automation. Their business model centers on providing API-driven payment solutions to businesses in sectors like e-commerce, utilities, and iGaming. The company leverages partnerships and integrations to expand its service offerings, including fraud prevention and BNPL options. Market positioning is technology-centric, aiming to simplify payment processes and reduce costs for clients. Growth indicators include a well-structured website with detailed product descriptions and API documentation, signaling maturity and readiness for enterprise clients. The absence of direct contact details and compliance documentation suggests areas for operational transparency improvement.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security posture with HTTPS enforcement, modern security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed credentials. The use of Content-Security-Policy and other headers mitigates common web attacks. However, the lack of published security policies, incident response plans, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms limits the site's transparency and preparedness for security incidents. GDPR compliance indicators are weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies and absence of consent mechanisms. The security culture appears nascent, with room for enhancement in compliance and user trust communication.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy detailing data collection, usage, and user rights to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Implement a cookie consent banner/mechanism to inform users and obtain consent for tracking technologies.
  3. Add explicit terms of service and security policy pages to enhance transparency and legal clarity.
  4. Provide direct contact information including security and abuse contacts to support incident response readiness.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Neopay
Description
Neopay provides smart payment solutions and financial services for online and physical retail locations across Europe. Their offerings include payment initiation, automated payouts, user verification, and other advanced payment-related services.
Key services
Payment initiation, Automated payouts, User verification, Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL), Fraud prevention, API integrations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Swiper.js, Finsweet FS Components, Lottie animations, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Webflow CMS
Platforms
Webflow Hosting
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of CSP
  • No exposed credentials in HTML
  • Secure forms with no visible vulnerabilities

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and content-rich.
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. Contact information is limited to a contact form; no direct emails or phone numbers found.
  4. Strong use of modern web technologies and analytics tools.
  5. No visible security or compliance documentation.
  6. No social media links or direct company emails found in HTML.
  7. WHOIS data is transparent and consistent with business claims.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Webflow CMS and hosted on Webflow's platform, utilizing modern front-end technologies such as Google Fonts, Swiper.js for sliders, Lottie for animations, and Finsweet FS Components for UI enhancements. Analytics and marketing tools include Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager, integrated asynchronously to optimize performance. The site is mobile responsive with good SEO meta tags and structured navigation. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in accessibility features and loading speed. No critical technical debt or outdated technologies were detected, indicating a well-maintained digital infrastructure.
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 neopay.lt. 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 neopay.lt.

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.