Skip to main content

Security report for tigerbeetle.com

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

TigerBeetle.com is a technology-focused website promoting a high-performance financial transactions database designed for online transaction processing (OLTP). The site positions itself as a next-generation solution capable of powering financial transactions at unprecedented speeds. The target audience appears to be developers and businesses requiring robust and scalable OLTP database solutions. The website is built using modern web technologies, specifically the Framer platform, and employs privacy-conscious analytics via Plausible Analytics. The design and user experience are professional and optimized for mobile devices, although accessibility features are basic. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection in place; however, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers suggests room for improvement. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are published, and contact information is not explicitly provided, which may impact user trust and compliance. The domain is long-established since 2011, registered through a reputable registrar, and shows no suspicious patterns, indicating legitimacy. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures to improve compliance and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

4 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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 tigerbeetle.com

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
90
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
75

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

TigerBeetle operates in the technology sector, specifically targeting the financial technology niche with its OLTP database product. The business model revolves around providing a specialized database solution optimized for financial transactions, likely monetized through software licensing or support services. The market positioning emphasizes speed and reliability, aiming to capture developers and enterprises needing high-throughput transaction processing. The website content is focused and relevant, though it lacks detailed business information such as company legal name or contact details. The absence of visible partnerships or subsidiaries suggests a lean organizational structure. The use of modern web tools and privacy-focused analytics indicates a forward-looking digital strategy. Growth potential is tied to the adoption of their database technology in fintech and related industries.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is properly implemented, and the domain status clientTransferProhibited protects against unauthorized domain transfers. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, which could expose the domain to DNS spoofing risks. No security headers like Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. The lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates limited transparency and preparedness in security governance. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified in the analyzed content. Overall, while basic security practices are in place, the site would benefit from adopting additional security controls and publishing relevant policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to harden the website against common attacks.
  4. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Include clear contact information on the website to enhance business credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The financial transactions database to power the next 30 years of Online Transaction Processing.
Key services
Financial transactions database, High-speed online transaction processing (OLTP)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Framer (website generator), JavaScript, Plausible Analytics
Frameworks
Framer
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Plausible Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Plausible Analytics
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 not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly found in the content.
  4. Site uses modern web technologies and is built with Framer.
  5. Analytics implemented via privacy-focused Plausible Analytics.
  6. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  7. WHOIS data indicates a legitimate, long-registered domain with no DNSSEC enabled.
  8. No suspicious or malicious indicators detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using the Framer platform, leveraging modern web standards including responsive design and optimized fonts. It uses Plausible Analytics, a privacy-focused analytics service, indicating a commitment to user privacy. The site loads quickly and is mobile-optimized, providing a good user experience across devices. However, accessibility features are basic and could be improved to meet broader standards. The domain is registered with Gandi SAS, a reputable registrar, but DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a technical gap. No CMS other than Framer is detected. The site does not expose any sensitive data or use outdated libraries, indicating low technical risk. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and performant but could be enhanced with additional security and accessibility improvements.
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 tigerbeetle.com. 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 tigerbeetle.com.

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.