Skip to main content

Security report for persistent.com

Persistent Systems · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Persistent Systems is a well-established technology services company specializing in AI, digital engineering, and enterprise modernization. The company positions itself as a trusted partner for enterprises seeking to transform their AI journey and digital capabilities. Their website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive service offerings, a strong partner ecosystem, and extensive client success stories. The company targets large enterprises across multiple industries, leveraging a B2B business model with a focus on innovation and technology leadership. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and employs a modern tech stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and various marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager, Pardot, and CookiePro. Hosting is via AWS CloudFront CDN, ensuring global content delivery. The site is well-optimized for SEO and accessibility, with multilingual support and responsive design. However, performance metrics are not explicitly available. From a security perspective, the site has several security headers configured and uses HttpOnly cookies and a detailed Content Security Policy. However, a critical issue is the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, severely impacting the security posture. Other TLS protocols and features like OCSP stapling and session resumption are not enabled. DNS CAA records appear malformed, which could affect certificate issuance policies. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the website demonstrates a high level of professionalism and business credibility but suffers from a critical security gap due to missing HTTPS. Strategic remediation of SSL/TLS configuration is essential to improve trust and security compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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

3 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 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: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Cloudflare, Google APIs, Google Ads

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

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

Keep watching persistent.com

This scan found 15 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
50
Security headers
75
Email security
75
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
72

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

Persistent Systems holds a strong market position as a leader in software engineering and digital transformation services with over 35 years of experience. Their business model focuses on delivering domain expertise and technology-driven offerings to enterprise clients, supported by a diverse partner ecosystem including major technology companies like AWS, IBM, Salesforce, and Google. The company emphasizes client success and innovation, with a marketplace for APIs, products, and solutions enhancing their digital offerings. Revenue growth and client base size indicate a large enterprise scale. The multilingual website and global locations suggest an international footprint. Their marketing and analytics infrastructure supports extensive user tracking and engagement, aligned with modern digital marketing practices.

Security posture

The current security posture is moderate but compromised by the lack of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is a critical vulnerability. While security headers such as HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Content Security Policy are present, HSTS is not enabled effectively. The absence of TLS protocols and OCSP stapling further weakens secure communications. Cookies are set with HttpOnly and SameSite attributes, which is positive. DNS records show multiple domain verification entries but malformed CAA records could pose risks in certificate management. No explicit security policy or incident response information is found, indicating potential gaps in transparency and readiness. The site uses multiple third-party tracking and marketing scripts, which require careful privacy management.

Recommendations

  1. Urgently install and configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable and enforce HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload directives to prevent protocol downgrade attacks.
  3. Correct the malformed CAA DNS records to ensure proper certificate authority authorization.
  4. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve TLS performance and security.
  5. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users and partners.
  6. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure privacy compliance and minimize attack surface.
  7. Enhance monitoring for vulnerabilities and maintain up-to-date software and plugins.
  8. Continue to maintain comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with transparent consent mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern front-end stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and Slick Carousel. It leverages multiple third-party services for analytics, marketing automation, and user tracking such as Google Tag Manager, Pardot, Crazyegg, Mouseflow, and Microsoft Clarity. Hosting is via AWS CloudFront CDN, providing global content delivery. The site is multilingual and optimized for SEO with Yoast SEO plugin. Accessibility features and responsive design are implemented well. However, performance data is missing, and the lack of HTTPS is a major technical risk. The site uses advanced content security policies but could improve TLS configurations and certificate management. Overall, the technical infrastructure is robust but requires critical security upgrades.
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 persistent.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 persistent.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.