Skip to main content

Security report for results.info

Vertical-Life · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Vertical-Life operates a specialized digital platform focused on delivering real-time competition results for climbing events. Their service supports multiple climbing disciplines and competition formats, offering features such as seamless registration, judging interfaces, participant messaging, and series rankings. The platform targets climbing event organizers, judges, and athletes, positioning itself as a niche leader in climbing competition technology. Technically, the website is built with modern JavaScript frameworks (likely Vue.js), integrates Google services for analytics and advertising, and employs cookie consent mechanisms indicating GDPR awareness. Security posture is strong with HTTPS, security headers, and bot protection via reCAPTCHA, though explicit security policies and incident response contacts are absent. Overall, the site is professional, well-designed, and trustworthy, with minor gaps in privacy documentation and incident response readiness.

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

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 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  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 results.info

This scan found 23 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
65
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
66

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

Vertical-Life's market positioning is focused on the climbing sports sector, providing a SaaS solution for competition result management. Their business model includes premium and enterprise plans with advanced features such as paraclimbing support and membership management. The company leverages partnerships with related domains for shop and gym management software, indicating an ecosystem approach. The target customers are event organizers and participants in climbing competitions worldwide. The platform's growth potential is supported by its comprehensive feature set and digital transformation of traditional scoring methods. Strategic observations include the need to enhance privacy and security transparency to strengthen trust and compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS, modern security headers, and bot mitigation via Google reCAPTCHA. However, the absence of a published security policy, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms represents gaps in compliance and readiness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. The use of third-party advertising and tracking services is transparent but should be balanced with stronger privacy controls. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved by formalizing policies and communication channels for security incidents.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from all pages.
  2. Add a dedicated security policy and incident response contact email (e.g., security@vertical-life.info).
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience.
  5. Improve SEO metadata completeness and structured data for better search visibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Vertical-Life
Description
Vertical-Life provides a digital competition result service for climbing events, offering real-time scoring, custom formats, registration and payment management, judging interfaces, participant messaging, series rankings, and routesetting statistics. It supports multiple climbing disciplines and IFSC formats.
Key services
Real-time competition result service, Customizable event formats, Registration and payment processing, Judging interface with offline support, Participant messaging, Series ranking management, Routesetting statistics, Enterprise features including paraclimbing support
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google reCAPTCHA, Google Tag Manager, DoubleClick for Publishers (Google Ads), Cookiebot for cookie consent
Frameworks
Vue.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA for bot protection
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website provides a specialized digital service for climbing competition results.
  2. Content is professional and well-structured with clear calls to action.
  3. Use of modern web technologies and security best practices.
  4. Cookie consent is implemented indicating GDPR awareness.
  5. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on the analyzed page.
  6. Contact email is provided for sales inquiries but no general support or security contact emails found.
  7. No phone numbers or physical addresses explicitly listed on this page.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  9. Advertising and tracking are primarily via Google services.
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; site fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript framework (Vue.js) with modular CSS and component-based architecture. It integrates Google services for analytics, tag management, and advertising, and uses Cookiebot for GDPR-compliant cookie consent. Performance is moderate with preloading and prefetching of resources. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design and adaptive navigation. No CMS detected, indicating a custom or proprietary platform. Hosting provider details are not explicit. Technical risks are low but include reliance on third-party scripts and the need for ongoing maintenance of security headers and privacy compliance.
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 results.info. 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 results.info.

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.