Skip to main content

Security report for omeda.com

Omeda · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Omeda is a professional audience engagement platform specializing in data-driven growth solutions for media and marketing teams. Their platform integrates audience data, customer data platform capabilities, workflow automation, multichannel engagement, email engagement, and subscription management. The company positions itself as a key player in media business solutions, offering a comprehensive SaaS platform to unify and activate audience data for revenue growth. The website is well-structured, with clear navigation and professional branding, targeting media and marketing professionals. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern JavaScript libraries and tracking tools such as Google Tag Manager and Hotjar, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and security headers implemented, though explicit security policies and incident response information are not publicly available. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable anomaly, reducing trust slightly despite the professional appearance and content. Overall, the site is safe, business-focused, and well-optimized for SEO and user experience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 100 · Low
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 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. 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 omeda.com

This scan found 23 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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
95
Average
70

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 operates in the media sector, providing essential marketing and audience data services. Their business model revolves around SaaS offerings that enable media companies to manage subscriptions, automate workflows, and engage audiences across multiple channels. The company targets media business leaders, audience teams, digital advertising teams, marketing services teams, and media brand teams. Their ecosystem includes integrations and client support resources such as a knowledge base and training academy, indicating a strong customer engagement strategy. The website content and metadata suggest a medium-sized enterprise with a market presence dating back to at least 2018. The lack of public contact emails and phone numbers suggests a controlled communication channel, likely via demo requests and support portals. The company maintains active social media presence on LinkedIn and YouTube, supporting brand visibility and thought leadership.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a good SSL configuration and includes multiple security headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, and Content-Security-Policy, reflecting adherence to security best practices. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of published security policies, incident response plans, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates gaps in transparency and formal security governance. No direct security contact emails were found. The use of third-party analytics and tracking tools is balanced with privacy compliance indicators, including a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the security posture is solid from a technical perspective but could be improved by publishing formal security and incident response documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to enhance transparency and trust.
  2. Add a terms of service page to clarify user agreements and legal protections.
  3. Provide explicit contact information for security incidents, including security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.
  5. Investigate and resolve the WHOIS registration data absence to improve domain trustworthiness.
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, Integrations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Font Awesome, WordPress, PHP
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Hotjar, Olytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar, Olytics
Marketing tools
Hotjar, Olytics
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Professional media audience engagement platform
  2. Comprehensive marketing and subscription management solutions
  3. Good SEO and metadata implementation
  4. Multiple client support resources available
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed
  6. No terms of service page found
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  8. No WHOIS registration data available, unusual for active domain
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, and Font Awesome. The site uses optimized CSS and JavaScript loading strategies, including deferred scripts and CDN-hosted fonts, contributing to moderate performance. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive design and viewport settings. SEO is well-implemented with comprehensive meta tags, Open Graph data, and JSON-LD structured data for organization and breadcrumb navigation. The site includes multiple external integrations for analytics and marketing automation. No critical technical debt or outdated libraries were detected, though accessibility could be improved. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified from the content. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable web presence.
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. 65/100 −2Medium33 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.