Skip to main content

Security report for teamlinx42.app

TeamLinx42 · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

TeamLinx42 is a technology company offering a Microsoft Teams integrated app designed to facilitate quick and easy access to documents and information within teams. Positioned as a collaborative and decentralized knowledge management tool, it targets organizations using Microsoft Teams to improve information sharing and reduce knowledge silos. The company operates under the parent company AppSphere AG, based in Germany, and offers a SaaS model with a focus on ease of use and team collaboration. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Elementor and Yoast SEO, but suffers from performance issues and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts security posture. The security configuration is basic, with no advanced headers or TLS protocols enabled, and no published security or incident response policies. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant, with a cookie consent mechanism implemented. Overall, the website demonstrates moderate professionalism and trustworthiness but requires significant improvements in security and performance to enhance user trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 100 · Medium
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. 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching teamlinx42.app

This scan found 19 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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
35
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
90
GDPR outside view
58
Average
65

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention teamlinx42.app, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for teamlinx42.app right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

TeamLinx42 operates in the technology sector, focusing on enterprise collaboration tools integrated with Microsoft Teams. Its business model revolves around providing a SaaS application that enables decentralized and self-organized document and information management for teams. The company leverages its parent company AppSphere AG's infrastructure and branding. The target market includes medium to large organizations using Microsoft Teams, seeking to improve internal knowledge sharing and onboarding processes. The presence of a free trial and clear pricing pages indicates a subscription-based revenue model. The company maintains active social media channels on Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn, supporting marketing and customer engagement. The website content and testimonials emphasize ease of use, quick installation, and collaborative benefits, positioning TeamLinx42 as a practical solution for knowledge management challenges in corporate environments.

Security posture

The current security posture of TeamLinx42's website is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate, lack of TLS protocol support, and missing security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, and X-Frame-Options. While cookie consent is implemented, the site does not publish any explicit security policy or incident response plan, nor does it provide dedicated security contact channels. DNSSEC and CAA records are not configured, which could expose the domain to DNS spoofing or unauthorized certificate issuance risks. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present. These gaps expose the website and potentially its users to risks such as data interception, man-in-the-middle attacks, and reduced trustworthiness. The lack of advanced security measures and incident response readiness indicates a low maturity level in security governance and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all website traffic with HTTPS.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload options to enforce secure connections.
  3. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan on the website, including dedicated security contact emails such as security@ or abuse@.
  5. Configure DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance domain security and prevent unauthorized certificate issuance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using the Elementor page builder and Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a modern but common technology stack. It uses jQuery and Swiper.js for frontend interactivity. Hosting appears to be managed via nroute.de DNS servers. Performance metrics show a slow load time of 6.1 seconds and a large page size (~247 KB), suggesting optimization opportunities. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility is basic. SEO is supported by Yoast SEO and structured data (JSON-LD) is implemented for enhanced search engine understanding. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and absence of TLS protocols represent significant technical risks. The site does not use advanced analytics or tracking services, indicating minimal user tracking. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but requires security and performance improvements to reduce technical debt and 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 teamlinx42.app. 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 teamlinx42.app.

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.