Skip to main content

Security report for sardine.ai

Sardine · Finance · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

Sardine operates as an AI-driven risk platform specializing in fraud detection, credit risk management, and compliance automation, primarily serving enterprise clients in the finance and compliance sectors globally. The platform consolidates multiple risk and fraud workflows, enhancing operational efficiency and real-time fraud prevention. The company positions itself as a trusted partner for hundreds of enterprises across more than 70 countries, emphasizing compliance with BSA/AML regulations and data unification across risk teams. Technically, Sardine's website leverages modern web technologies including Webflow CMS, Google Tag Manager, HubSpot, and various analytics and marketing tools, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. The site is well-optimized for mobile and accessibility, with good SEO practices and performance. Security-wise, the website enforces HTTPS, employs multiple security headers, and integrates cookie consent mechanisms, indicating a strong security posture. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy protection or malformed queries, which is common for tech companies but limits domain trust analysis. Overall, Sardine presents a professional, secure, and privacy-conscious online presence with room to enhance transparency in security and incident response policies.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of sardine.ai. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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. 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

      SSL Certificate Expires Soon

      SSL certificate expires in 27 days

      What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration

      • NIS2 21(2)(h)
      • IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
      • NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates

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

Keep watching sardine.ai

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
62
Security headers
60
Email security
98
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
82

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

Sardine's market positioning as an AI risk platform for fraud and compliance places it in a competitive niche within the financial technology sector. Its business model focuses on B2B SaaS offerings targeting enterprises requiring robust fraud prevention and regulatory compliance solutions. The company benefits from a global client base and strategic use of AI to differentiate its services. Revenue streams likely include subscription-based access to its platform and possibly consulting or integration services. The target customer segments are financial institutions, fintech companies, and compliance teams. Sardine's partnership ecosystem includes integrations with marketing and analytics providers but no explicit partner or subsidiary domains were identified. The company's digital maturity is evidenced by its use of advanced web technologies and marketing automation tools. Strategic observations suggest Sardine could strengthen trust by publishing more detailed security and incident response information and expanding visible contact channels.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS enforcement and comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security. Cookie consent is actively managed via OneTrust, supporting GDPR compliance. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the lack of a published security policy, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure program limits transparency and may impact user trust and regulatory compliance. The absence of a security.txt file or similar vulnerability disclosure mechanism is a gap in best practices. Overall, the security posture is strong technically but could be enhanced with improved policy transparency and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and compliance frameworks.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact information, including security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Add verified company contact emails and phone numbers on the website to improve business credibility.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Sardine
Description
Sardine’s AI platform is at the core of enterprise risk and fraud workflows, allowing them to consolidate vendors and improve operational efficiency. Hundreds of enterprises in over 70 countries trust Sardine to stop fraud in real-time, streamline BSA/AML compliance, and unify data across risk teams.
Key services
fraud detection and prevention, BSA/AML compliance streamlining, real-time risk management, data unification across risk teams
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, HubSpot, Vimkit, Unify Intent, Swiper.js, GSAP, Hammer.js, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
Webflow CMS
Platforms
Webflow hosting
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security headers

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, HubSpot Analytics, LinkedIn Insight Tag, G2 Tracking
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel, Demandbase, G2 Tracking
Marketing tools
HubSpot, Unify Intent
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to malformed query or privacy protection.
  3. Strong use of modern web technologies and marketing/analytics tools.
  4. Good privacy and cookie consent mechanisms implemented.
  5. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found on main pages.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response information published.
  7. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
  8. Content is professional, business-oriented, and safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Webflow CMS and incorporates a modern technology stack including GSAP for animations, Swiper.js for sliders, and multiple analytics and marketing tools such as HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and Facebook Pixel. Hosting is provided by Webflow, ensuring reliable performance and HTTPS support. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and accessibility features, with valid meta tags and SEO-friendly content. Performance is moderate, with some reliance on external scripts which may impact load times. Technical risks include dependency on multiple third-party scripts which require ongoing security monitoring. Opportunities exist to enhance technical documentation and security transparency to align with enterprise expectations.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 84/100Low20 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with sardine.ai. 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 sardine.ai.

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.