Skip to main content

Security report for sofia.vc

Sof.IA · Technology · Brazil

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Sof.IA is a Brazilian technology company offering an AI-powered personal assistant accessible via WhatsApp. The service integrates multiple AI platforms such as ChatGPT, OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft to provide features including image generation, translations, mathematical solutions, and audio-based Q&A. The business model is credit-based with free trial credits and paid packages, targeting smartphone users seeking practical AI assistance. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Elementor and related plugins, hosted on AWS infrastructure. However, the site suffers from slow performance and lacks a valid SSL certificate, exposing users to security risks. Security posture is weak with no HTTPS, no security headers, and missing DNS security records. Privacy compliance is poor, with no privacy or cookie policies despite collecting user data via forms. Contact information is available via email and contact forms, but no formal security or incident response policies are found. Overall, the site is functional but requires significant improvements in security and privacy to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  3. 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching sofia.vc

This scan found 22 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
50
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
57

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

Sof.IA occupies a niche market as a WhatsApp-based AI assistant, leveraging popular AI technologies to deliver fast and practical responses. Its competitive advantage lies in multi-AI integration and accessibility via a widely used messaging platform. The credit-based monetization model allows flexible user engagement. The company targets Brazilian users, including students and general consumers. The website's partnership ecosystem is limited, with no identified partners or subsidiaries. Growth indicators are not explicit, but the presence of social media and promotional packages suggests active marketing efforts. Strategic observations include the need for improved security and privacy to build user trust and comply with regulations.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of Sof.IA is low. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical vulnerability that undermines user data confidentiality and integrity. The lack of security headers and DNS security features further exposes the site to common web attacks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are published, indicating limited preparedness for security incidents. Data protection practices are minimal, with no privacy or cookie policies despite collecting personal data via forms. The security culture appears nascent, with no visible certifications or frameworks adopted. These gaps pose significant business risks, including reputational damage and regulatory non-compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site immediately.
  2. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and local data protection laws.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to harden the website.
  4. Configure DNS security features including DMARC, DNSSEC, and CAA records to protect domain integrity.
  5. Develop and publish an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve security readiness and transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern CMS platform (WordPress) using Elementor and several addons, indicating a moderate level of technical maturity. The hosting is on AWS, a reliable cloud provider. However, the site suffers from slow load times (over 15 seconds) and a large number of resources (131), which could impact user experience. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility and SEO optimizations are basic. The absence of structured data and Open Graph metadata limits search engine and social media integration. Technical debt is evident in the lack of SSL and security best practices, which should be prioritized to reduce operational risks.
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 sofia.vc. 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 sofia.vc.

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.