Skip to main content

Security report for privacylab.it

PrivacyLab · Other · Italy

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

PrivacyLab is an Italian privacy consulting firm specializing in GDPR compliance and data protection advisory services. The website presents a professional image with a focus on privacy-related services, targeting businesses and professionals in Italy. The technical infrastructure includes modern JavaScript libraries and Google Tag Manager for marketing and analytics purposes. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and no visible sensitive data exposure, but lacks advanced security headers and incident response disclosures. Privacy compliance is limited due to absence of explicit privacy and cookie policies in the analyzed content. Overall, the website is functional and professional but could improve transparency and compliance documentation.

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

2 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 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';…

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

Keep watching privacylab.it

This scan found 20 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
95
Security headers
35
Email security
65
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
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

PrivacyLab operates in the niche privacy consultancy sector within Italy, offering services such as privacy compliance consulting, training, and certification. The business model appears service-oriented, targeting organizations needing GDPR and data protection expertise. The website's content and metadata suggest a small-sized company with consistent branding and moderate market presence. The lack of detailed business registration data and contact information on the homepage limits deeper business intelligence. The use of Google Tag Manager and analytics indicates an interest in marketing and user behavior insights.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates Google Tag Manager with cookie category controls, indicating some attention to privacy and security. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces the overall security posture. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which is a gap in security transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Security best practices could be enhanced by adding security headers and publishing incident response contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
  3. Publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure information, including a security.txt file.
  4. Improve accessibility features to meet compliance standards and enhance user experience.
  5. Increase transparency by providing clear contact information including emails and phone numbers on the website.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
PrivacyLab
Description
Dal 01 dicembre 2024 è stato implementato il nuovo listino prezzi. Leggi la comunicazione da parte di PrivacyLab.
Key services
Privacy compliance consulting, Data protection advisory, Training and certification
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, jQuery, Slick Carousel, EasyAutocomplete, Pikaday Datepicker, Fancybox, TOAST UI Calendar, TOAST UI Date Picker, TOAST UI Time Picker, Selectize.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • Use of Google Tag Manager with cookie category control

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is in Italian and targets privacy compliance professionals
  2. No explicit privacy or cookie policy found on the homepage HTML
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers in the provided HTML snippet
  4. Use of modern JavaScript libraries and UI components
  5. No visible security.txt or incident response information
  6. Google Tag Manager is loaded with marketing cookie category
  7. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms
  8. Content is professional and business-focused
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a custom or unknown CMS with a modern front-end tech stack including jQuery, Slick Carousel, EasyAutocomplete, Pikaday Datepicker, Fancybox, and TOAST UI components. Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics are integrated for marketing and analytics. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and basic SEO. Accessibility is basic and could be improved. Hosting provider details are not evident from the provided data. The site uses canonical URLs and Open Graph metadata for social sharing. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced SEO and accessibility improvements.
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 privacylab.it. 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 privacylab.it.

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.