Skip to main content

Security report for signstik.com

Signstik · Other · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

Signstik is a small business specializing in signs and banner services, represented by a Facebook public profile page. The business appears to target a general audience seeking signage solutions. The page is hosted on Facebook's platform, leveraging its robust technical infrastructure and security features. The technical maturity is moderate, with modern frameworks like React and Relay used by Facebook, ensuring good performance and mobile optimization. However, the business page itself lacks direct privacy, cookie policies, and contact information, which limits its compliance and trustworthiness from a standalone perspective. Security posture is strong due to Facebook's HTTPS enforcement and platform security, but the absence of explicit security policies or incident response contacts on the page is noted. Overall, the risk is low given the platform's trust but could be improved by adding business-specific compliance and contact details.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 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. 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

      SSL Certificate Expires Soon

      SSL certificate expires in 7 days

      What to do: Renew SSL certificate before expiration

      • NIS2 21(2)(h)
      • IR 2024/2690 9.2(c): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(c): Cryptography
      • NIST SC-17: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-17: Public Key Infrastructure Certificates
    • 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 signstik.com

This scan found 13 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
27
Security headers
85
Email security
98
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
81

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

Signstik operates in the signage and banner service sector, likely serving local or regional customers. The business model is service-oriented, relying on social media presence for marketing and customer engagement. The Facebook page indicates a small-scale operation with 164 likes, suggesting a modest market position. There is no evidence of parent companies or subsidiaries. The business leverages Facebook's ecosystem for visibility but lacks standalone digital assets or detailed business information. Growth potential depends on social media engagement and local market demand. No partnerships or affiliate programs are evident from the page.

Security posture

The security posture benefits from Facebook's enterprise-grade infrastructure, including HTTPS, secure hosting, and platform-wide security controls. No direct vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected on the page. However, the absence of explicit privacy and cookie policies, security incident contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms on the business page itself represents a compliance gap. The page does not provide security framework certifications or incident response information. Overall, the security risk is low due to platform protections but could be enhanced by business-specific security disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Add a clear privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism linked or displayed on the business page.
  2. Provide direct business contact information including email and phone for customer and security incident reporting.
  3. Implement a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Enhance accessibility features to improve user experience for all visitors.
  5. Consider creating a standalone website with comprehensive compliance and security information to complement the Facebook presence.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Signstik
Description
Signstik. 164 likes. Signs & Banner Service
Key services
Signs & Banner Service
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
React, Relay, JavaScript, Facebook Comet framework
Frameworks
React, Relay
Platforms
Facebook
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced

Analytics and tracking

Services
Facebook Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Ads
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. The page is a Facebook public profile page for a small business named Signstik.
  2. No direct company contact information or privacy/cookie policies are present on this page.
  3. The page is hosted on Facebook's platform, inheriting Facebook's security and compliance measures.
  4. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  5. The WHOIS data for facebook.com is not publicly available due to registrar policies.
Technical notes

Notes

The page is built on Facebook's proprietary platform using React and Relay frameworks, ensuring modern, performant, and mobile-optimized delivery. The hosting is managed by Facebook, providing excellent uptime and security. The page includes standard meta tags and Open Graph data for social media integration. No CMS other than Facebook's platform is detected. Performance is fast with efficient resource loading from Facebook's CDN. Accessibility and SEO are basic but functional. There is no evidence of technical debt or outdated libraries. The technical infrastructure is robust but limited by the constraints of the Facebook platform for business-specific customization.
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 signstik.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 signstik.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.