Skip to main content

Security report for openbrand.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 5 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

The website at openbrand.com appears to be a business-oriented site with a domain registered since 2011, indicating a mature presence. The site utilizes HubSpot marketing and analytics tools alongside Google Tag Manager, hosted via Amazon Registrar infrastructure. However, the visible content is minimal and lacks critical compliance elements such as privacy and cookie policies, terms of service, and contact information. The absence of security headers and DNSSEC indicates potential security improvement areas. Overall, the site demonstrates basic technical implementation but falls short in privacy compliance and business transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 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

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 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
    • 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 openbrand.com

This scan found 21 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. 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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
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

Due to limited content and lack of explicit business information, detailed business intelligence is constrained. The domain age and use of professional marketing tools suggest a legitimate business entity, but no clear market positioning, business model, or sector information is available. The absence of contact details and policies reduces credibility and trust signals. The site likely targets a general business audience but lacks visible differentiation or strategic insights.

Security posture

The security posture is basic with HTTPS implied but no DNSSEC enabled and no security headers detected. The use of multiple third-party scripts increases the attack surface, and the lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing security headers, and publishing privacy and security policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  2. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance site security.
  4. Publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Audit and minimize third-party scripts to reduce potential vulnerabilities and improve performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, HubSpot Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
HubSpot Analytics, Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
HubSpot Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
HubSpot Marketing
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website uses multiple HubSpot marketing and analytics scripts.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly found in the provided content.
  4. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  5. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a security improvement opportunity.
  6. Website content is minimal or truncated, limiting full content analysis.
  7. No explicit business or company information found in the HTML or metadata.
  8. Website uses Google Tag Manager and HubSpot for tracking and marketing.
  9. No forms with identifiable fields found in the truncated HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses JavaScript heavily, including HubSpot analytics and marketing scripts, Google Tag Manager, and other tracking pixels. Hosting is via Amazon Registrar, a reputable provider. The site shows moderate performance and basic mobile optimization but lacks advanced accessibility and SEO features. The HTML content is extensive but truncated, limiting full analysis. No CMS or frameworks are explicitly detected. The technical stack is modern but could benefit from improved security configurations and compliance 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 openbrand.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 openbrand.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.