Skip to main content

Security report for paynt.com

Paynt · Finance · N/a

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Paynt is a mature payment solutions provider founded in 2004, offering a comprehensive suite of payment processing services including acquiring, POS systems, tipping solutions, capital funding, merchant services, and data reporting. The company targets businesses across retail, hospitality, digital business, and service sectors, positioning itself as an innovative and award-winning infrastructure provider with a global footprint including the EU, EEA, UK, USA, and Canada. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern libraries such as jQuery and Swiper.js, and employs Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile-optimized and SEO-friendly, though performance is moderate. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection, but lacks visible security headers and DNSSEC. Privacy compliance is weak due to absence of privacy and cookie policies and no consent mechanism. Contact information is limited to a contact form with no direct emails or phone numbers. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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 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

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Unregistered MX Record

      MX record points to unregistered domain: irqb25qqhiseussp4e7gwhyyqlx5pko3p5nih3idgt6ajgqkhzra.mx-verification.google.com

      What to do: Remove or fix MX record pointing to unregistered domain

      • RFC 5321 §5.1
      • NIS2 21(2)(i)
      • IR 2024/2690 12.4: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 12.4: Asset inventory
      • NIST CM-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-8: System Component Inventory

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

Keep watching paynt.com

This scan found 18 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
57
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
77

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

Paynt operates in the finance and technology sectors, focusing on payment processing and merchant services. Its business model revolves around providing integrated payment solutions to various industries, leveraging partnerships with multiple POS and payment technology providers. The company’s revenue streams likely include transaction fees, subscription billing, and capital funding services. The partnership ecosystem is broad, indicating strategic alliances that enhance market reach and service offerings. The company’s long domain age and consistent branding suggest stability and market presence. However, the lack of direct contact details and formal privacy/security policies may impact customer trust and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protection in place. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents gaps that could be exploited. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of published security policies and incident response contacts indicates limited transparency and preparedness. Privacy compliance is insufficient, with no GDPR indicators or cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, while basic security practices are followed, there is room for significant improvement to meet industry best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with explicit consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to prevent DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  4. Publish a security policy and provide incident response contact information (e.g., security@ or abuse@ email addresses) to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Include direct contact information such as company phone numbers and verified emails to enhance trust and customer support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Paynt
Description
A fully integrated payment solution and infrastructure provider
Key services
Accept Payments (In Person and Online), Accept Tips, Paynt Capital (Funding), Data & Reporting (Paynt Portal)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Swiper.js, Yoast SEO
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Google Tag Manager with consent defaults set to denied

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

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 or cookie policies found
  3. Contact available only via contact form, no direct emails or phone numbers found
  4. No visible security policy or incident response information
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices
  6. No suspicious or malicious indicators detected
  7. No security headers detected in provided data
  8. No social media links explicitly found in HTML content
  9. Multiple partner logos and domains indicate a broad partnership ecosystem
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, utilizing jQuery and Swiper.js for interactive elements, and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. The site uses Yoast SEO plugin for search engine optimization and loads fonts from Google Fonts. Hosting and DNS services are managed via Cloudflare, providing reliable infrastructure and domain registration. Performance is moderate, with good mobile optimization and basic accessibility features. The site structure and metadata are well-formed, including Open Graph tags and JSON-LD structured data for SEO. Technical risks include lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers, which should be addressed to reduce attack surface and improve security posture.
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 paynt.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 paynt.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.