Skip to main content

Security report for ttx.com

TTX · Transportation · United States

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

TTX is a well-established transportation company specializing in railcar pooling and maintenance services across North America. Founded in 1955, it operates a large fleet and extensive maintenance network, serving the rail industry with innovative logistics solutions. The website reflects a mature business with comprehensive service offerings and a clear market position. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern libraries and integrates Google Maps and analytics, but suffers from an invalid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS enforcement, which impacts security posture. Security headers are present, but critical SSL/TLS configurations are missing, exposing the site to potential risks. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent SSL and security improvements to meet modern standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

4 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

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      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

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

Keep watching ttx.com

This scan found 12 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
0
Security headers
90
Email security
50
DNS health
50
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
51

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 ttx.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
187
Employees
8
Customers
154
Third parties
25
Weak passwords
8%

Latest record dated 2026-03-24 · 12 subdomains 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 ttx.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –fs.ttx.com2026-03-24
  • –fs.ttx.com2026-01-10
  • –fs.ttx.com2025-11-01
  • –fs.ttx.com2025-09-21
  • –fs.ttx.com2025-07-24

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

TTX holds a strong market position as a leader in railcar pooling and maintenance, targeting railroads and logistics companies in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Its business model focuses on maximizing railcar utilization and providing maintenance services, supported by a large physical presence with multiple locations. The company leverages partnerships for career management and maintains active social media channels. The website content and structured data reinforce its credibility and industry focus. Growth indicators include significant investment in railcars and maintenance spending. The company’s digital presence is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy transparency to align with industry best practices.

Security posture

The current security posture shows moderate maturity with several strengths such as security headers and cookie flags. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent critical vulnerabilities that undermine user trust and data protection. The lack of HSTS enforcement and OCSP stapling further weakens the HTTPS security. No explicit security or incident response policies are publicly available, indicating gaps in transparency and readiness. The site should prioritize SSL certificate renewal, enable modern TLS versions, and implement comprehensive security policies to improve resilience and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL certificate to enable HTTPS and secure all site traffic.
  2. Enable TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3 protocols and disable deprecated versions to strengthen encryption.
  3. Implement and enforce HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  5. Publish clear security and incident response policies including contact channels for reporting issues.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
TTX
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a WordPress CMS with common plugins such as Yoast SEO and Contact Form 7, supported by jQuery, Bootstrap, and Google Maps API. Hosting is via Cloudflare, providing CDN and security proxy services. Performance metrics are missing, but the site appears moderately optimized with mobile responsiveness and SEO best practices. Accessibility is basic but functional. The invalid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols are major technical risks. The site uses structured data (JSON-LD) effectively for SEO and business representation. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires urgent security upgrades and performance monitoring.
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 ttx.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 ttx.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.