Skip to main content

Security report for secure-mailgate.com

Secure Mailgate · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Secure Mailgate operates as a specialized provider of secure email gateway services, focusing on secure login and email domain management primarily targeting business users requiring secure email access. The website is functional and accessible, featuring a login form and multilingual support but lacks comprehensive public-facing content such as privacy policies, terms of service, or contact information. Technically, the site uses standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS, hosted on infrastructure associated with Cloudpit. Performance is moderate with a relatively small page size and acceptable load times. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with modern TLS protocols (1.3 and 1.2) and a valid wildcard SSL certificate, but lacks advanced security features such as HSTS, OCSP stapling, DNSSEC, and DMARC records. No security headers are detected, and no vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are publicly available. This indicates a basic security posture with room for significant improvement to enhance email domain protection and overall site security. Overall, the website presents a basic but functional digital presence with limited transparency on privacy and security policies. The lack of contact information and policy documents may impact user trust and compliance with data protection regulations. Strategic improvements in security configuration, policy publication, and user communication are recommended to strengthen the company's market position and compliance posture.

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

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"

  2. 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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

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

Keep watching secure-mailgate.com

This scan found 18 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
92
Security headers
60
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
73

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

Secure Mailgate appears to occupy a niche in the secure email gateway market, providing services aimed at securing email communications for businesses. The business model likely revolves around subscription or service fees for secure email access and domain management. The absence of detailed business information, certifications, or trust signals suggests a small-sized company with a focused but limited public profile. The multilingual interface indicates an intent to serve a diverse European customer base, with Germany as the likely country of origin based on language and DNS data. The company currently lacks visible partnerships or subsidiaries, and no payment processors or related domains are identified. Growth opportunities may include expanding transparency, enhancing security compliance, and broadening service offerings.

Security posture

The security posture of Secure Mailgate is foundational but incomplete. The site uses HTTPS with modern TLS versions and a valid wildcard certificate, which is positive. However, the absence of HSTS, OCSP stapling, DNSSEC, and DMARC records exposes the domain to potential DNS and email spoofing risks. No security headers are present to mitigate common web attacks, and no vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are published, limiting transparency and responsiveness. The login form uses standard POST method with autocomplete off, but no advanced protections like multi-factor authentication or CAPTCHA are evident. Overall, the security maturity is basic, suitable for minimal risk environments but requiring enhancements to meet higher compliance and security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and prevent downgrade attacks.
  2. Implement OCSP stapling to improve SSL certificate revocation checking and reduce latency.
  3. Publish a DMARC record to protect against email spoofing and phishing attacks.
  4. Enable DNSSEC to secure DNS queries and prevent DNS spoofing.
  5. Add CAA DNS records to restrict which certificate authorities can issue certificates for the domain.
  6. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  7. Publish privacy policy, cookie policy, and terms of service documents to improve compliance and user trust.
  8. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts to enhance transparency and support.
  9. Consider adding multi-factor authentication and CAPTCHA on login forms to improve authentication security.
  10. Regularly audit and update the technology stack and dependencies to avoid vulnerabilities.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS, with jQuery detected. No modern web frameworks or CMS platforms are identified. Hosting is provided by Cloudpit as indicated by DNS nameservers. The site supports TLS 1.3 and 1.2 but lacks advanced SSL features such as OCSP stapling and certificate transparency compliance. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 3.6 seconds and a small page size under 9 KB. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no explicit ARIA or accessibility features detected. SEO optimization is minimal with no Open Graph or structured data present. The site lacks analytics or tracking scripts, indicating minimal user tracking. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but basic, with opportunities for modernization and enhancement in performance, security, and user experience.
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 secure-mailgate.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 secure-mailgate.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.