Skip to main content

Security report for adamarchitecture.com

adamarchitecture.com · Other · N/a

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website adamarchitecture.com currently serves a security challenge page that blocks direct access to its main content. This challenge includes a CAPTCHA and a JavaScript-based proof-of-work mechanism, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or similar security protection. Due to this blocking, no substantive business content, contact information, or policies are accessible for analysis. The domain is mature, registered since 2008 with Tucows Domains Inc., and has domain transfer protections enabled, suggesting legitimate domain management. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers or HTTPS enforcement details are visible in the provided data. The website's technical infrastructure includes modern JavaScript features and uses AWS Cloudfront CDN for content delivery. Overall, the site’s security posture is limited by the lack of visible security headers and policies, and the content quality is poor due to the blocking mechanism. Privacy compliance and business credibility cannot be assessed due to lack of accessible information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL 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

  2. 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"

    • 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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

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

Keep watching adamarchitecture.com

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
50
Average
50
After the cap
49

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

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 adamarchitecture.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for adamarchitecture.com 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

No direct business intelligence can be derived from the blocked content. The domain name suggests an architecture-related business, but no explicit business model, market position, or services are described on the challenge page. The domain age supports a potentially established business, but absence of contact or policy information limits credibility. No partnerships or related domains are identified. The website appears to prioritize security by implementing a challenge page, possibly to mitigate automated attacks or abuse.

Security posture

The security posture shows some strengths such as domain transfer prohibitions and use of a CAPTCHA challenge to prevent automated access. However, the absence of DNSSEC, security headers, and visible HTTPS enforcement reduces the overall security maturity. No privacy or incident response policies are found, and no contact channels for security incidents are provided. The JavaScript proof-of-work challenge is a positive security control but may impact user experience. Overall, the site demonstrates basic security controls but lacks comprehensive security and privacy practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to improve domain name system security.
  2. Implement and enforce HTTPS with HSTS headers to secure communications.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible to users.
  5. Provide visible contact information including security incident response contacts to improve trust and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a robot challenge screen with CAPTCHA and JavaScript proof-of-work challenge indicating a WAF or security protection blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Company
adamarchitecture.com
Description
Checking the site connection security
Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Web Crypto API, Blob, Worker Threads
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of clientTransferProhibited and clientUpdateProhibited domain statuses

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by a security challenge page requiring CAPTCHA and proof-of-work.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or data collection fields present on the challenge page.
  5. External resources loaded from AWS Cloudfront CDN.
  6. No social media or external business links found.
  7. WHOIS data shows domain is mature and properly registered but lacks DNSSEC.
  8. Security posture is weak due to lack of visible HTTPS enforcement and security headers.
  9. Content safety is high as no adult or questionable content detected.
  10. Overall website quality and content are poor due to blocking and minimal content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses advanced JavaScript techniques including Web Workers and cryptographic functions to implement a proof-of-work CAPTCHA challenge. Content is served via AWS Cloudfront CDN, indicating a scalable hosting infrastructure. However, the blocking challenge prevents access to the main website content, limiting assessment of the full technology stack or CMS. No SEO or accessibility features are evident on the challenge page. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be fully evaluated due to content blocking.
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 adamarchitecture.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 adamarchitecture.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.