System Verification · Technology · Sweden
Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.
System Verification is a well-established global software quality assurance company specializing in advanced quality monitoring and analytics, leveraging AI insights to enhance end-user experiences. With over 22 years in the QA business and a workforce exceeding 300 employees, the company positions itself as a strategic partner focusing on innovation, efficiency, and security. Their service portfolio includes Quality AI, expert QA for digital transformation, tailored quality assessments, flexible subscription services, and dedicated teams, targeting businesses seeking to improve software quality and delivery. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with integrations of HubSpot for forms and analytics, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and various marketing pixels. The site demonstrates good SEO practices, mobile optimization, and a modern tech stack, although some performance and accessibility improvements could be made. The presence of a comprehensive cookie consent mechanism and privacy policy indicates a mature approach to privacy compliance. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and implements consent-based tracking controls but lacks explicit security headers and a published security policy or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The domain registration details align well with the company's claimed history and location, supporting its legitimacy. Overall, System Verification's website reflects a professional, trustworthy, and privacy-conscious organization with a solid market position in the technology sector. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy, and improving accessibility features to further strengthen their security posture and compliance.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data
What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception
What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS
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.
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 16 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention systemverification.com, from OffSeq Breach.
See the 10 newest leaked credentials
A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for systemverification.com.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with systemverification.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review systemverification.com.