Skip to main content

Security report for powereng.com

POWER Engineers, Incorporated · Energy · United States

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

POWER Engineers, Incorporated is a large professional engineering and consulting firm specializing in integrated engineering and environmental solutions primarily for the energy sector. The company positions itself as a multidisciplinary expert group delivering high-value outcomes to clients. Their website reflects a mature digital presence with a modern React and Gatsby-based infrastructure, supported by a comprehensive content strategy and strong branding consistency. The technical stack includes advanced analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot, Facebook Pixel, and Bing Ads, indicating a data-driven approach to user engagement and marketing. From a security perspective, the website enforces HTTPS and shows no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, it lacks explicit security policies, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, which are important for transparency and trust in the engineering sector. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is a notable anomaly that slightly undermines trust, although the professional website content and social media presence support legitimacy. Overall, the website demonstrates strong content quality, technical implementation, and privacy compliance, with room for improvement in security transparency and domain registration clarity. Strategic recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing security policies, and addressing the WHOIS data gap to enhance trustworthiness and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 100 · Medium
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. 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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 powereng.com

This scan found 17 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. 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
65
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
78

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

POWER Engineers operates in the energy sector, offering engineering and environmental consulting services. Their business model focuses on delivering integrated solutions through multidisciplinary teams. The company targets clients requiring complex engineering expertise, emphasizing mutual success through strong client relationships. The website highlights recent projects and company news, including a merger with WSP, indicating growth and strategic partnerships. The firm leverages extensive digital marketing and analytics tools to engage its audience and optimize outreach. The lack of explicit financial or founding year data limits deeper business intelligence, but the company's large size and comprehensive service offerings position it as a significant player in its market niche.

Security posture

The website maintains a good security posture with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The use of secure forms and absence of vulnerable libraries are positive indicators. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published security or incident response policies represent gaps in security maturity. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, which could hinder responsible vulnerability reporting. The extensive use of third-party tracking scripts increases the attack surface and privacy considerations. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Review and minimize third-party tracking scripts to reduce privacy risks and improve performance.
  5. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS data issue to improve domain registration transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
POWER Engineers, Incorporated
Description
POWER brings together multidiscipline experts—engineers, scientists and consultants—to create integrated engineering and environmental solutions that deliver smart, high-value outcomes to clients.
Key services
Engineering, Environmental consulting, Multidiscipline expert services
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Gatsby, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot, Facebook Pixel, Bing Ads
Frameworks
React, Gatsby
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with no visible vulnerabilities

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Bing Ads
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, HubSpot Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Marketing tools
HubSpot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  3. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which is unusual for an established company website.
  4. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  5. Contact information includes phone numbers and contact forms but no explicit emails found in HTML.
  6. Multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools are used, indicating extensive user tracking.
  7. No explicit security policy or incident response information found.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  9. Social media presence is strong with official accounts on Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern React and Gatsby framework, leveraging Prismic as a headless CMS. It uses multiple analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, HubSpot, Facebook Pixel, and Bing Ads, indicating a sophisticated digital marketing infrastructure. The site is fast loading, mobile-optimized, and SEO-friendly with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is good but could be further enhanced. No hosting provider information was directly detected. The technical implementation is robust, supporting a professional and engaging user experience with minimal technical debt visible from the front-end analysis.
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 powereng.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 powereng.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.