Skip to main content

Security report for sick.com

SICK · Technology · Sweden

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

SICK is a globally recognized enterprise specializing in the production of sensors and sensor solutions for industrial automation. Their website reflects a professional and enterprise-grade digital presence, targeting industrial clients and businesses requiring advanced automation technologies. The company positions itself as a leader in sensor intelligence with a clear focus on B2B manufacturing sectors. Technically, the website is built using modern frameworks such as Angular and employs structured data (JSON-LD) for enhanced SEO. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and performance characteristics. Analytics and tracking are managed via Tealium, indicating a mature approach to data collection and marketing. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and asynchronous script loading, but lacks visible security headers and explicit security or incident response policies. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration trust analysis, but the website's professional branding and content strongly suggest legitimacy. Overall, the website is well-designed and secure, with minor gaps in privacy compliance and domain registration transparency. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing clear privacy and security policies, and verifying domain registration details for improved trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

6 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 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

  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 sick.com

This scan found 23 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
62
Security headers
45
Email security
60
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
66

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

SICK operates in the technology sector, focusing on industrial automation sensors. Their market position is strong as a leading global producer, serving industrial clients worldwide. The business model is B2B, providing specialized sensor products and solutions. The website content and structure indicate a large enterprise with consistent branding and professional communication. The company leverages modern digital marketing and analytics tools, suggesting a mature marketing ecosystem. No direct revenue streams or subsidiaries were identified from the content, but the brand's global presence implies a broad partnership and distribution network.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security posture with enforced HTTPS and no visible exposure of sensitive information. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published security or incident response policies represent areas for improvement. No vulnerability disclosures or security.txt files were found, which could enhance transparency and trust. The use of third-party analytics (Tealium) requires ongoing monitoring to ensure no privacy compliance gaps. Overall, the security maturity is solid but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish detailed privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Establish and publish a security incident response policy and contact channels (e.g., security@ or abuse@ emails).
  4. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosures and improve transparency.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure consistency and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
SICK
Description
SICK is one of the world’s leading producers of sensors and sensor solutions for industrial automation applications
Key services
sensors, sensor solutions, industrial automation products
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Angular (ng-version 19.2.13), JavaScript, CSS variables, Web Components, JSON-LD structured data
Frameworks
Angular
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of async script loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Tealium
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Tealium (utag.js)
Marketing tools
Tealium Tag Management
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and professional design.
  2. No WHOIS data available from provided raw output, limiting domain registration analysis.
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided content.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and structured data for SEO.
  6. Presence of Tealium tag management for analytics and tracking.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. No explicit security or incident response policies found.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  10. Content is safe and appropriate for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Angular framework version 19.2.13, indicating a modern and actively maintained front-end technology stack. CSS variables and web components are utilized for styling and modular UI components. The site loads scripts asynchronously and uses JSON-LD structured data for SEO enhancement. Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. No CMS or hosting provider details were explicitly detected. The technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable digital presence suitable for an enterprise-level industrial technology company.
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 sick.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 sick.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.