Skip to main content

Security report for sentilink.com

SentiLink · Finance · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

82/100

Risk levelLow

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

SentiLink is a technology company specializing in identity fraud prevention solutions targeted at financial institutions. Their platform combines advanced technology and expertise to detect and stop identity theft at the application stage, positioning them as a leading provider in the finance sector. The website is professionally designed using modern web technologies such as Next.js and React, hosted likely on WPEngine, and integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools including HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, and social media pixels. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no obvious vulnerabilities detected, though explicit security headers and policies are not published. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a concern for domain legitimacy, but the website content and branding suggest a credible business. Privacy compliance is partial with a cookie consent mechanism but no clear privacy policy or terms of service pages found. Overall, the site is well-built and trustworthy from a user perspective but would benefit from improved transparency and domain registration clarity.

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

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  2. 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

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

Keep watching sentilink.com

This scan found 16 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
72
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention sentilink.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
4
Employees
2
Customers
2
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

Latest record dated 2026-06-17 · 1 subdomain affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for sentilink.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –dashboard.sentilink.com2026-06-17
  • –dashboard.sentilink.com2025-06-24

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

SentiLink operates in the finance sector providing identity fraud prevention services primarily to financial institutions. Their business model is B2B SaaS, focusing on stopping fraud at the application stage. The company leverages partnerships with marketing platforms like HubSpot and uses extensive tracking for analytics and retargeting. The website content emphasizes their expertise and leadership in fraud prevention, targeting financial institutions as their main audience. No explicit information about company size, founding year, or parent/subsidiary relationships was found. The lack of WHOIS data raises questions about domain registration but does not detract from the professional presentation and market positioning. The company appears to have a solid digital marketing and sales funnel with demo requests and product overview calls to action.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses secure cookies with a cookie consent banner, indicating attention to user privacy and security. However, no explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options were detected in the provided data. There is no published security policy, incident response information, or vulnerability disclosure program visible on the site. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified. The use of multiple third-party marketing and analytics scripts increases the attack surface but is common in modern websites. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by publishing security policies and implementing additional HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to improve privacy compliance and user trust.
  2. Add explicit HTTP security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility.
  4. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to demonstrate security maturity.
  5. Clarify domain registration details or ensure WHOIS data is publicly available to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SentiLink
Description
SentiLink combines technology and expertise to help financial institutions stop identity fraud at the application stage.
Key services
Identity fraud detection, Fraud prevention at application stage
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, HubSpot scripts, Google Tag Manager, Bing Ads, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data detected
  • Use of secure cookies (inferred from cookie banner)

Analytics and tracking

Services
HubSpot Analytics, Google Analytics (via GTM), Bing Ads, LinkedIn Insight
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads, Facebook Ads
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, HubSpot Analytics
Marketing tools
HubSpot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and fully functional
  2. Professional design and clear branding
  3. Focus on identity fraud prevention for financial institutions
  4. Use of multiple marketing and analytics tools
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the HTML
  6. No privacy policy or terms of service pages explicitly detected
  7. Cookie consent banner present and active
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  9. WHOIS data unavailable or domain not found in registry
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern React/Next.js framework, indicating a contemporary and scalable technical infrastructure. Hosting appears to be on WPEngine, a reputable managed WordPress hosting provider, inferred from asset URLs. The site uses multiple marketing and analytics tools including HubSpot, Google Tag Manager, Bing Ads, Facebook Pixel, and LinkedIn Insight Tag, showing a mature digital marketing setup. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO practices. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. No CMS like WordPress is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or headless CMS approach. The site is well-structured with canonical URLs and Open Graph metadata for social sharing. Overall, the technical implementation is solid with room for enhancements in accessibility and security headers.
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 sentilink.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 sentilink.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.