Skip to main content

Security report for teamin.cz

TeamIn · Technology · Czech Republic

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

TeamIn is a Czech Republic-based software solution focused on providing a team information system tailored for small businesses. The platform facilitates project management, workflow control, and performance tracking, aiming to simplify communication and task management within small firms. The website presents a clear business focus with professional content and consistent branding, targeting small companies needing efficient project and workflow management tools. Technically, the website is built using standard web technologies including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, with Google Analytics integrated for visitor tracking. The site shows moderate performance and basic mobile optimization but lacks advanced frameworks or CMS detection. Security measures appear minimal, with no visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers, and no privacy or cookie policies published, indicating gaps in compliance and security best practices. From a security perspective, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. The lack of privacy and cookie policies further impacts GDPR compliance. While the site content is safe and business-appropriate, the security posture is weak, and improvements are needed to enhance trust and protect user data. Overall, the site is functional and informative but requires significant enhancements in security, privacy compliance, and domain legitimacy to improve its risk profile and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

9 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. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching teamin.cz

This scan found 28 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
67
Security headers
15
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
55

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

TeamIn operates in the technology sector, providing a niche project and workflow management system for small businesses primarily in the Czech Republic. Its competitive advantage lies in addressing the needs of small firms managing multiple smaller projects with a web-based solution that supports remote collaboration. The business model appears to be software licensing or SaaS, focusing on workflow simplification, communication enhancement, and performance monitoring. The company maintains a professional online presence but lacks extensive contact details or certifications that could strengthen market trust. Growth indicators and partnerships are minimal based on available data, suggesting a small-scale operation with potential for expansion if security and compliance are improved.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of the TeamIn website is low. Key vulnerabilities include the absence of HTTPS enforcement, lack of security headers, and missing privacy and cookie policies, which are critical for GDPR compliance. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, indicating limited preparedness for security incidents. The use of Google Analytics without visible privacy disclosures further complicates compliance. The missing WHOIS data undermines domain trustworthiness and raises questions about ownership transparency. Overall, the security culture appears immature, and the site would benefit from implementing standard security best practices, privacy policies, and transparent domain registration information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users about data collection.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  4. Provide clear domain registration information or ensure WHOIS data is publicly available to improve trust.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
TeamIn
Description
TeamIn is an information system primarily designed for small businesses to facilitate company management, focusing on workflow, project management, and performance monitoring especially for handling multiple smaller projects.
Key services
Workflow management, Project management, Performance tracking, Remote collaboration
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, CSS, HTML
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google Analytics with asynchronous loading

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and contains meaningful business content.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. No HTTPS or security headers information available; security posture is weak.
  4. WHOIS data is missing, which is a major trust and legitimacy concern.
  5. Website uses Google Analytics for tracking without visible privacy disclosures.
  6. Contact information limited to a single email address in footer.
  7. No forms detected on the main page; no data collection forms present.
  8. Website content is in Czech language targeting Czech small businesses.
  9. No social media links found.
  10. No security or incident response policies published.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic web technologies including HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, with asynchronous loading of Google Analytics scripts. There is no evidence of modern frameworks or CMS platforms. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO optimization is basic, with meta tags present but no advanced structured data or Open Graph tags detected. The site lacks HTTPS enforcement and security headers, which are critical technical risks. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but outdated and requires modernization to meet current web standards and security expectations.
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 teamin.cz. 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 teamin.cz.

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.