Skip to main content

Security report for onfarm.com

JAIN Logic · Technology · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

68/100

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

JAIN Logic operates a technology platform accessible via a secure login portal powered by Auth0. The website serves as an authentication gateway for users to access JAIN Logic's services. The site is minimalistic, focusing solely on login functionality without public-facing content such as privacy policies, contact information, or business descriptions. Technically, the site uses modern React components and standard web technologies, with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. Security posture is moderate, leveraging HTTPS and secure password inputs, but lacks visible security headers and compliance documentation. The absence of WHOIS data for the subdomain is expected but limits domain trust evaluation. Overall, the site is functional but lacks transparency and comprehensive compliance information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
Checks completed
6of 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Cloudflare

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching onfarm.com

This scan found 18 issues across 5 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
75
Email security
65
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
68

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

JAIN Logic appears to be a small technology company providing a platform requiring user authentication. The business model likely revolves around subscription or account-based access. The login portal is branded consistently but lacks public business details, limiting insights into market positioning or partnerships. The use of Auth0 indicates a focus on secure identity management. No external partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the login page. The target audience is existing users or customers needing access to JAIN Logic services.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate with HTTPS enforced and password fields secured with show/hide toggles. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating potential compliance gaps with GDPR or other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site does not appear to be behind a WAF or security challenge, and no vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publicly display privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to enhance security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information and security incident response channels.
  4. Enhance accessibility and SEO features for better user experience and discoverability.
  5. Consider multi-factor authentication and vulnerability disclosure programs to strengthen security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
JAIN Logic
Description
JAIN Logic appears to be a technology company providing a login portal for users to access their services. The site is branded with the JAIN logo and welcomes users to log in to continue to JAIN Logic.
Key services
User authentication and access to JAIN Logic platform
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Auth0 ULP (Universal Login Page), React components (Auth0 CDN), JavaScript ES6+, CSS3, HTML5
Frameworks
React
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL scheme https://)
  • Password input field with show/hide toggle
  • Noindex, nofollow meta robots tag to prevent indexing

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a login portal with minimal content beyond authentication form
  2. No public privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No contact information or security policies visible
  4. Uses Auth0 Universal Login Page technology
  5. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms
  6. No SEO or social media metadata present
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  8. No explicit or adult content present
  9. WHOIS data unavailable for subdomain, limiting domain trust analysis
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Auth0's Universal Login Page built with React components, served over HTTPS. The technical implementation is modern but minimalistic, focusing on authentication functionality. Performance is moderate with external dependencies on Auth0 CDN and AWS S3 for static assets. No CMS or hosting provider details are evident. Accessibility is basic with some ARIA and noindex meta tags. SEO is minimal due to noindex directives and lack of metadata. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking.
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 onfarm.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 onfarm.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.