Skip to main content

Security report for omeda.com

Omeda · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Omeda operates a sophisticated Audience Engagement Platform designed to unify audience data, personalize experiences, and drive revenue growth primarily for media and marketing teams. The company positions itself as a trusted partner for professional media, publishing, and content leaders, offering integrated solutions including customer data platforms, subscription management, and multichannel engagement. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional branding, clear messaging, and a comprehensive service offering. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern JavaScript libraries and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, and Olytics. Security posture is generally good with HTTPS enforced, but lacks some explicit security headers and visible incident response information. Privacy compliance is addressed with a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service, though a cookie consent mechanism is not evident. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable concern, impacting domain transparency and trust. Overall, the website demonstrates a strong business and technical foundation with room for improvement in security and privacy transparency.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of omeda.com. View the latest report

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

6 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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

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

Keep watching omeda.com

This scan found 24 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
82
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
65

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

Omeda targets audience-driven businesses, especially in media and marketing sectors, leveraging a SaaS model to provide integrated audience data management and engagement solutions. Their market positioning is strengthened by visible client logos and testimonials, indicating established partnerships and trust. The business model focuses on consolidating fragmented data and workflows into a unified platform to accelerate revenue growth. The company appears to have been founded around 2018, with a medium-sized operational scale. Their ecosystem includes support portals, training academies, and knowledge bases, enhancing customer engagement and retention. The lack of explicit contact information on the main site suggests a focus on digital self-service and enterprise sales channels.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates trusted third-party analytics and marketing scripts, indicating a baseline security maturity. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No visible security policies or incident response contacts are provided, which could hinder rapid response to security incidents. The site does not display a cookie consent mechanism, which may affect GDPR compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be enhanced by implementing recommended headers, visible security policies, and consent mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to strengthen browser security.
  2. Add a visible cookie consent banner or mechanism to improve GDPR compliance and user privacy transparency.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to enhance trust and preparedness.
  4. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS data issue to improve domain transparency and legitimacy perception.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to minimize privacy risks and optimize performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Omeda
Description
Boost audience engagement with Omeda’s powerful Audience Engagement Platform. Unify data, personalize experiences, and drive growth with our all-in-one solution for media and marketing teams.
Key services
Integrated Audience Data Platform, Customer Data Platform, Workflow and Process Automation, Multichannel Engagement, Email Engagement, Subscription Management
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, Olytics, Slick Carousel, WordPress
Frameworks
WordPress, jQuery UI
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and analytics scripts from trusted sources

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, Olytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads, Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, Olytics
Marketing tools
Olytics
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. Professional and modern design with clear navigation and rich content.
  3. Strong focus on audience engagement platform for media and marketing sectors.
  4. Use of multiple analytics and marketing tracking tools.
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage or main navigation.
  6. Privacy and terms of service pages are present and linked in footer.
  7. No visible security or incident response contact information.
  8. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which is a concern for domain transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern front-end leveraging jQuery, jQuery UI, and Slick Carousel for UI components. It uses Google Tag Manager to manage analytics and marketing tags, including Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, and a proprietary Olytics tracking script. The site loads CSS and JS assets optimized via caching and autoptimize plugins, indicating attention to performance. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design and viewport settings. Accessibility is basic but could be improved with ARIA roles and semantic HTML enhancements. SEO is well addressed with meta tags, Open Graph, Twitter cards, and JSON-LD structured data. Hosting provider details are not explicitly found. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in load times and accessibility 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 70/100 +3Medium31 findingsView report
  2. 67/100Medium26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with omeda.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 omeda.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.