Security report for sibforms.com
Other · N/a
The website sibforms.com currently serves as a redirect gateway to a login page hosted on account-app.brevo.com, indicating that the primary user interaction occurs on a separate domain. The business appears to be related to forms or account management services, but no direct content or descriptive information is available on the landing page. The domain is registered since 2018 with OVH sas and uses Cloudflare for DNS and likely security, suggesting a legitimate and moderately mature business infrastructure. However, the lack of publicly accessible content, policies, or contact information limits transparency and user trust. From a technical perspective, the site employs Cloudflare DNS and likely benefits from Cloudflare's security features, but the landing page itself is minimal, containing only a JSON redirect. No metadata, scripts, or SEO elements are present, indicating a low digital maturity on the public-facing side. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies is a compliance gap, especially for GDPR-relevant users. Security posture is partially supported by Cloudflare protection, but no explicit security headers or incident response information is visible. The domain registration data is consistent and shows no suspicious patterns, supporting legitimacy. However, the minimal public content and lack of transparency reduce the overall trustworthiness and user confidence. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, privacy compliance, and business credibility due to the lack of accessible information and policies. The presence of Cloudflare protection and a legitimate domain registration provide some security assurance, but improvements in transparency, policy publication, and contact availability are recommended to enhance trust and compliance.
Scanned
NIS2 and GDPR posture
- GDPR outside view
- 40/ 100 · High
- Checks completed
- 6of 7
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
- (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
- (b) Incident handling: One indicator
- (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
- (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
- (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
- (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
- (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
- (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
- (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
- (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.
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
- GDPR Art. 12
- GDPR Art. 13
- NIST PT-5: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-5: Privacy Notice
- 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
- GDPR Art. 7
- ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
- NIST PT-4: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-4: Consent
- High
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
- NIS2 21(2)(h)
- IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
- NIST SC-13: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-13: Cryptographic Protection
- High
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
Keep watching sibforms.com
This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
- 75
- Email security
- 70
- DNS health
- 75
- Network security
- 100
- GDPR outside view
- 40
- Average
- 72
Not counted
- Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
- 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
Security posture
Recommendations
- Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies on the public website to ensure GDPR compliance.
- Implement and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
- Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts (e.g., security@ or abuse@ emails).
- Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and integrity.
- Enhance public-facing content to improve transparency, user trust, and business credibility.
Site observations
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Cloudflare detected. The website content is minimal and contains a JSON redirect to a login page hosted on account-app.brevo.com, served via Cloudflare nameservers, indicating a likely Cloudflare protection or access control mechanism. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.
Business
- Content quality
- poor
- Branding
- inconsistent
Technology
- Performance
- moderate
Analytics and tracking
- Tracking level
- minimal
- Privacy practices
- poor
Advertising
- Transparency
- poor
Site quality
- Design
- poor
- User experience
- poor
- Content relevance
- poor
- Navigation
- poor
- Professionalism
- poor
- Trustworthiness
- low
Key observations
- Website content is minimal and redirects users to a login page on a related domain.
- No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the landing page.
- No contact information or business details are publicly available on the landing page.
- The domain is protected by Cloudflare, indicating some level of security infrastructure.
- No scripts, forms, or metadata beyond a simple JSON redirect were detected.
- No SEO or accessibility features are present due to minimal content.
- No advertising or analytics technologies detected on the landing page.
Technical notes
Notes
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.
- MITRE CWE (opens in a new tab)4.20 (2026-04-30) · CWE Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- MITRE CAPEC (opens in a new tab)3.9 (2023-01-24) · CAPEC Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
- Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
- Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
- NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
- NIST NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens in a new tab)live records · Public domain (NVD); CVE® records © MITRE, free use
- W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
- ETSI EN 301 549 (opens in a new tab)V3.2.1 (2021-03), clause headings · Clause numbers and titles only (© ETSI)
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Retrieved 2026-10-25
Earlier scans of this domain
- 72/100Medium23 findings · partial scanView report
- 72/100Medium23 findings · partial scanView report
- 69/100Medium24 findings · partial scanView report
Feedback on this report
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with sibforms.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review sibforms.com.