Adopce.com · Non-profit · Czech Republic
High risk. 12 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 3 other checks.
Adopce.com is a well-established non-profit website dedicated to supporting individuals interested in adoption and foster care within the Czech Republic. It operates in partnership with the Tereza Maxová Foundation and the Center for Adopting and Foster Care, providing comprehensive resources, guidance, and contact support to prospective adoptive and foster parents. The website is professionally designed, content-rich, and targets a general audience seeking trustworthy information on child welfare and substitute family care. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using modern plugins such as Breakdance, Yoast SEO Premium, and integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for visitor tracking. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, although performance is moderate. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and secure forms, but lacks visible security headers and formal security policies. From a security and compliance perspective, the absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises transparency concerns, although the website content and partner associations support legitimacy. No privacy or cookie policies were detected, which may impact GDPR compliance. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response information, suggesting room for improvement in security governance. Overall, Adopce.com presents a trustworthy and professional resource for adoption and foster care information, but should enhance transparency, privacy compliance, and security practices to strengthen its risk posture and user trust.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
12 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
Detected services: Google Analytics, Google APIs
What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 29 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.
€25per month
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.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention adopce.com, from OffSeq Breach.
2 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 adopce.com.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with adopce.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review adopce.com.