Skip to main content

Security report for tooltester.com

Tooltester · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Tooltester is a specialized online platform providing comprehensive reviews, comparisons, and guides for web tools including website builders, ecommerce platforms, web hosting, and live chat software. The website targets individuals and small businesses looking to create and grow their online presence by selecting the best digital tools. The business model primarily relies on content marketing and affiliate partnerships, positioning Tooltester as a niche authority in the technology review space. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with common plugins such as Yoast SEO and WPML for multilingual support. It uses jQuery and integrates tracking tools like Facebook Pixel and Clicky for analytics. The site demonstrates good design quality, mobile responsiveness, and SEO optimization, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and explicit security policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable anomaly that impacts trustworthiness. Overall, the site is professional and functional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching tooltester.com

This scan found 18 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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

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 tooltester.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1
Employees
0
Customers
1
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

1 subdomain affected

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 tooltester.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Tooltester operates in the technology sector focusing on digital tool reviews and guides. Its competitive advantage lies in detailed, SEO-optimized content and a broad coverage of web-related services. The target customers are small businesses, entrepreneurs, and individuals seeking to build websites or online stores. Revenue likely comes from affiliate marketing and advertising. The partnership ecosystem includes platforms like 99designs and Fiverr, indicating a broader service offering. Growth indicators include multilingual support and extensive content breadth. However, the lack of visible company registration or contact details may limit business credibility in some markets.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and uses standard tracking pixels but lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. No explicit privacy policy or incident response contacts were found, which are important for GDPR and general compliance. The absence of WHOIS data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be improved by implementing security headers, publishing privacy and security policies, and providing clear contact information for incident response.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and terms of service pages to enhance compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to improve security posture.
  3. Publish clear contact information including security incident response contacts to improve transparency and compliance.
  4. Investigate and resolve the missing WHOIS registration data to ensure domain legitimacy and trust.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and SEO benefits.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Tooltester
Description
We help you find the best web tools to create a website, an online store, offer live chat, improve your SEO and so much more.
Key services
Website builder reviews, Ecommerce platform reviews, Web hosting reviews, Live chat software reviews, Guides and tutorials
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Yoast SEO plugin, WPML (WordPress Multilingual Plugin), WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of Facebook Pixel for tracking

Analytics and tracking

Services
Clicky (in.getclicky.com), Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional review and comparison platform for web tools.
  2. Content is well structured with extensive navigation menus.
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage.
  4. Privacy policy and terms of service pages not explicitly found in the provided content.
  5. Cookie consent mechanism is present and active.
  6. Use of Facebook Pixel and Clicky for analytics and tracking.
  7. No signs of adult or NSFW content.
  8. WHOIS data is missing or domain is unregistered, which is a significant anomaly.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including jQuery and Yoast SEO for optimization. It supports multiple languages via WPML and uses Facebook Pixel and Clicky for analytics. The site loads with moderate performance and is mobile optimized. However, there is no evidence of advanced frameworks or hosting provider details. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from improved security configurations and performance tuning. The absence of WHOIS data is a technical and trust concern that should be addressed.
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 tooltester.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 tooltester.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.