Skip to main content

Security report for senq-cyber.com

Senq · Finance · United States

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

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Senq is an enterprise-focused cybersecurity company specializing in advanced threat intelligence and breach detection services. Their offerings include dark web monitoring, takedown services, vendor breach monitoring, strategic threat reports, disinformation monitoring, and bespoke threat content. The company targets financial institutions and large enterprises globally, with a presence in the United States, UAE, and Europe. The website demonstrates a professional and consistent brand image with modern design and clear navigation. Technically, the site uses modern front-end technologies such as Tailwind CSS and Font Awesome, ensuring good mobile responsiveness and accessibility. However, there is no evidence of CMS or hosting provider details. Performance is moderate, and SEO practices are adequately implemented. Security-wise, HTTPS is implied but no explicit security headers were detected, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are published. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about domain legitimacy. Overall, Senq presents a strong security posture with recognized certifications (SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, NIC2, ISO 27001) and a comprehensive service portfolio. The lack of privacy and cookie policies and missing WHOIS data are notable gaps. The site is safe for general audiences and does not contain any adult or questionable content.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1

  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 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

      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 senq-cyber.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. 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
37
Security headers
80
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
80
Average
64

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

Senq operates in the cybersecurity sector with a focus on enterprise threat intelligence, particularly serving financial institutions. Their business model is B2B, offering subscription-based and custom-priced services. The company leverages partnerships with recognized brands (e.g., Visa, Mastercard) to enhance credibility. Their market positioning emphasizes comprehensive, real-time threat detection and breach prevention. Growth indicators include a global presence and a diverse service portfolio addressing compliance risks such as GDPR and NIS2. The company maintains active social media channels and a professional online presence but lacks publicly available domain registration data, which may warrant further due diligence.

Security posture

Senq demonstrates a mature security posture with multiple industry certifications and a focus on compliance with GDPR and other regulations. Their services include real-time dark web monitoring and takedown support, indicating operational readiness for incident response. However, the website lacks visible security headers and published incident response contacts, which are best practices for transparency and trust. The absence of WHOIS data is a potential red flag for domain legitimacy. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected on the site. Overall, the security posture is strong but could be improved by publishing more detailed security policies and contact information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to enhance GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options to improve website security.
  3. Publish an incident response policy and provide dedicated security contact emails to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and reduce suspicion.
  5. Enhance analytics and tracking transparency by disclosing data collection and retention policies.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Senq
Description
Enterprise threat intelligence and breach detection for organizations worldwide
Key services
Dark Web Monitoring, Takedown Services, Vendor Breach Monitoring, Strategic Threat Reports, Disinformation Monitoring, Bespoke Threat Content
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Tailwind CSS, Font Awesome, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS implied by URL (https://)
  • Secure contact form with required fields

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Professional cybersecurity service website targeting enterprises, especially financial institutions
  2. Comprehensive service offerings with detailed descriptions and use cases
  3. Strong branding and consistent design with modern UI technologies
  4. No visible privacy or cookie policies, which is a compliance gap
  5. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found; only contact form available
  6. WHOIS data missing, raising questions about domain registration status
  7. No signs of WAF or content blocking; full site content accessible
  8. No adult or questionable content detected
  9. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Telegram, and Twitter
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern front-end technologies including Tailwind CSS for styling and Font Awesome for icons, ensuring a visually appealing and responsive design. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility features and clear navigation. Performance is moderate with no major issues detected. However, no CMS or hosting provider information is available, and no advanced frameworks or platforms are identified. The site lacks security headers and explicit privacy or cookie management scripts. The contact form collects standard business information but no additional tracking or analytics services were detected. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.
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 senq-cyber.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 senq-cyber.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.