Skip to main content

Security report for sortlist.fr

Sortlist · Technology · Belgium

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Sortlist is a technology-driven platform based in Belgium that connects businesses with relevant marketing and creative agencies to support their projects. The website positions itself as a trusted intermediary with a strong market presence, supported by positive user ratings and a consistent brand identity. The platform targets businesses seeking agency services across multiple European countries, as evidenced by localized contact numbers and multilingual support. Technically, the website leverages modern frameworks such as Next.js and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS and asynchronous script loading but lacks visible security headers and explicit security policies, suggesting room for improvement in security posture. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain trust verification, but the overall business credibility and professional presentation mitigate some concerns. Privacy compliance is partial, with no explicit privacy or cookie policies detected in the provided content. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing privacy and incident response policies, and improving transparency around data protection.

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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

  2. 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

  3. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • 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';…

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

Keep watching sortlist.fr

This scan found 24 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
57
Security headers
55
Email security
40
DNS health
65
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

Sortlist operates in the technology sector as an essential business platform facilitating connections between companies and marketing agencies. Its business model revolves around providing a curated agency matching service, likely generating revenue through agency partnerships or lead generation. The company maintains a multi-country presence with dedicated customer service phone numbers for Belgium, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and Germany, indicating a broad European market focus. The platform benefits from a strong brand reputation, supported by over 500 reviews with a high average rating. The use of advanced analytics and marketing tools suggests a data-driven approach to customer engagement and growth. However, the lack of visible privacy and security policies may pose compliance risks in regulated markets. The company should consider formalizing these aspects to strengthen trust and regulatory adherence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and use of reputable analytics and marketing scripts. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No explicit incident response or security policy information is publicly available, which could hinder effective communication during security events. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Privacy compliance indicators are weak, with no clear cookie consent mechanism or GDPR policy found, despite the presence of a cookie consent SDK (Axeptio). To improve security posture, the company should implement comprehensive security headers, publish incident response and privacy policies, and ensure all forms and inputs are secured against injection and CSRF attacks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance web security.
  2. Publish clear and accessible privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  3. Develop and disclose an incident response policy with dedicated contact channels for security issues.
  4. Conduct a thorough security audit of all forms and input fields to ensure protection against injection and CSRF vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency around data protection practices and data retention policies to align with regulatory requirements.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Sortlist SA
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Sortlist
Description
Découvrez les agences pertinentes qui sauront répondre à vos besoins.
Key services
Agency matching, Business project support
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, Radar analytics, Axeptio (cookie consent), Lead Forensics, USBrowserspeed
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of async scripts to improve performance

Analytics and tracking

Services
Radar analytics, Google Tag Manager, Lead Forensics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Lead Forensics, Radar analytics
Marketing tools
Radar analytics, Axeptio cookie consent
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 structured data
  2. No WHOIS data available, limiting domain trust verification
  3. Multiple country-specific contact phone numbers provided
  4. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools
  5. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found in provided HTML snippet
  6. No visible security policy or incident response information
  7. No forms detected in provided HTML snippet
  8. No suspicious or malicious indicators found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web technologies, notably Next.js, which supports server-side rendering and optimized performance. It integrates multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools such as Google Tag Manager, Radar analytics, Lead Forensics, and Axeptio for cookie consent management. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good SEO practices including meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts to reduce blocking. However, the absence of a detected CMS suggests a custom or headless architecture. Hosting provider details are not evident from the content. Technical risks include missing security headers and incomplete privacy compliance, which could impact user trust and regulatory adherence.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 58/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with sortlist.fr. 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 sortlist.fr.

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.