Skip to main content

Security report for sigmanet.com

C1 · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

C1 is a global technology solutions provider specializing in AI-powered communications, infrastructure, and security services. The company serves a broad range of sectors including education, government, healthcare, and financial services, supporting over 6,000 customers worldwide. Their offerings include unified communications, contact center solutions, enterprise networking, cybersecurity, and managed services, supported by partnerships with leading technology vendors such as Cisco, Microsoft, and AWS. Technically, the website is built on the HubSpot CMS platform, utilizing modern web technologies including Bootstrap, Google Tag Manager, and Vidyard for video content. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, clear navigation, and professional design. Analytics and marketing tools are integrated, with a cookie consent mechanism in place, though explicit privacy and terms of service pages were not detected in the provided content. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and employs cookie consent management, but lacks visible security headers and published security policies or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the HTML content. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain is unusual and slightly reduces trust, though the website content and partner ecosystem indicate a legitimate business. Overall, the website presents a professional and credible front with room for improvement in privacy transparency and security disclosures. Strategic recommendations include publishing comprehensive privacy and security policies, adding vulnerability disclosure information, and enhancing security headers to strengthen trust and compliance.

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

3 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

  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 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 sigmanet.com

This scan found 19 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
75
Security headers
45
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
80
Average
75

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

C1 positions itself as a key player in the enterprise technology solutions market, leveraging AI to enhance customer and employee experiences. Their business model focuses on delivering integrated communications, infrastructure, and security solutions, supported by advisory and managed services. The company targets large organizations across multiple sectors, emphasizing digital transformation and operational resilience. Their extensive partner network with major technology vendors strengthens their market position and service capabilities. Customer testimonials and case studies highlight successful deployments and satisfaction, indicating strong client relationships and growth potential.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to strong security posture with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms implemented. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published security or incident response policies represent gaps in transparency and best practices. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected, and forms appear secure. The missing WHOIS data for the domain is a concern for domain legitimacy verification. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for a commercial website but could be enhanced by publishing detailed security policies and incident response contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy page detailing data collection, usage, and GDPR compliance.
  2. Implement and publish a security policy and incident response plan with clear contact channels.
  3. Add security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve protection.
  4. Provide a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Investigate and resolve the absence of WHOIS data to improve domain trust and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
C1
Description
C1 is the global technology solution provider elevating connected human experiences. Over 6,000 customers use C1 to help them build meaningful connections.
Key services
Communications (including AI-powered communications, UCaaS, CCaaS), Infrastructure (enterprise networking, cloud, data center modernization), Security (AI-powered security, cybersecurity, physical security), Advisory, professional, and managed services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HubSpot CMS, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Vidyard video player, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Adnxs (AppNexus) tracking, Line Awesome icons, Slick carousel, Bootstrap CSS
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Platforms
HubSpot
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with consent management
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, HubSpot Analytics, LinkedIn Insight
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
AppNexus
Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight
Marketing tools
HubSpot marketing scripts
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for a .com domain.
  3. Cookie consent banner present with user control options.
  4. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in provided content.
  5. Multiple trusted technology partners and customer testimonials present.
  6. Use of modern marketing and analytics tools.
  7. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  8. No exposed sensitive data or obvious vulnerabilities in HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on HubSpot CMS with a modern tech stack including Bootstrap for responsive design, Google Tag Manager and Analytics for tracking, and Vidyard for video content delivery. The site loads with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility features are basic but present. No broken elements or errors were detected in the HTML content. The technical infrastructure supports a professional and scalable online presence, though performance optimization opportunities may exist.
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 sigmanet.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 sigmanet.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.