Skip to main content

Security report for a-designlab.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

36/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website 'a-designlab.com' serves as a minimal landing page for a design-focused business or studio named 'A Design Lab'. The site primarily showcases visual content with links to social media platforms such as Instagram and Behance, indicating a focus on portfolio presentation and client engagement through these channels. The business model appears to be service-oriented, targeting potential clients interested in design services, but lacks detailed textual content or comprehensive business information. From a technical perspective, the site is built on WordPress and utilizes common web technologies including jQuery, Tailwind CSS, and FontAwesome. The presence of the Coming Soon plugin suggests the site may be under development or intentionally minimal. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, and SEO features are minimal. No advanced frameworks or hosting details were identified. Security posture is limited; the site uses HTTPS but lacks security headers and does not provide privacy or cookie policies. No forms or data collection mechanisms are present, reducing immediate risk but also limiting user engagement capabilities. The absence of contact information and security policies reduces trust and compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile due to minimal data collection but suffers from poor content quality, limited business credibility, and weak security practices. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and richer business content would enhance trust and professionalism.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  4. 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"

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

Keep watching a-designlab.com

This scan found 20 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
0
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
25
Average
36

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 · found on this site
  • 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

The business behind 'a-designlab.com' appears to be a small design studio or individual designer showcasing their portfolio primarily through social media and a minimal website presence. The lack of detailed business information, contact details, or formal policies suggests a lean operation possibly targeting creative clients or collaborators. The business model relies on visual portfolio presentation and social engagement rather than direct online transactions or lead capture. There is no evidence of partnerships, certifications, or extensive market positioning. Growth indicators and revenue streams are not discernible from the website content. The use of privacy protection in WHOIS is typical for small businesses seeking to protect personal information.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of the website is low. While HTTPS is enabled, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are present, which are standard best practices. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. The site does not collect user data via forms, reducing exposure but also limiting engagement. Overall, the security culture appears minimal, with room for significant improvement in policy transparency and technical safeguards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR compliance and improve user trust.
  2. Add standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, HSTS) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Enhance mobile optimization and accessibility to improve user experience across devices.
  5. Develop richer website content including business descriptions, terms of service, and certifications to boost credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a landing page for a design-related business or studio named 'A Design Lab'. The content is minimal and primarily visual with links to social media and portfolio.
Key services
Design services, Portfolio showcase
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Tailwind CSS, FontAwesome
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is a minimal landing page with limited textual content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  4. Social media links to Instagram and Behance are present.
  5. Uses WordPress CMS with Coming Soon plugin active.
  6. No security headers detected in provided data.
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  8. No forms or data collection fields present.
  9. No visible business certifications or security policies.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with the Coming Soon plugin active, indicating either a work-in-progress or intentionally minimal site. The tech stack includes jQuery, Tailwind CSS, and FontAwesome for styling and UI elements. Performance is moderate with no explicit optimization techniques detected. Mobile responsiveness is basic, with some CSS media queries present but limited content to fully assess. SEO optimization is minimal, lacking meta descriptions and structured data. No analytics or tracking scripts were found, indicating minimal data collection. Technical debt appears low due to simplicity but modernization opportunities exist to improve security and user experience.
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 a-designlab.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 a-designlab.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.