Skip to main content

Security report for akhrabal.cz

Advokátní kancelář Mgr. Matouše Hrabala · Other · Czech Republic

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website represents a small Czech law office, Advokátní kancelář Mgr. Matouše Hrabala, providing legal consultancy and advocacy services. The domain is consistent with the business age and location, registered since 2013. The site content is minimal, primarily showcasing the law office name and logo, with no detailed business descriptions or contact information. The target audience is clients seeking legal services in the Czech Republic. Technically, the website runs on WordPress with Bootstrap and jQuery, but uses outdated versions which pose security risks. The site is accessible without any WAF or blocking mechanisms and does not contain any adult or questionable content.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

10 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

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

  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';…

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

Keep watching akhrabal.cz

This scan found 21 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
85
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
10
Average
47

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

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 operates as a small local law practice with a straightforward professional services model. There is no evidence of partnerships, subsidiaries, or certifications. The website lacks comprehensive content, privacy policies, or contact details, limiting its business credibility and client engagement potential. The absence of analytics or marketing tools suggests limited digital marketing efforts. The company appears to maintain a basic online presence primarily for informational purposes.

Security posture

Security posture is weak due to the absence of security headers, outdated WordPress and jQuery versions, and lack of privacy and cookie policies. HTTPS is enabled, which is a positive baseline. No incident response or security policy information is provided. The site does not expose sensitive data but would benefit from modern security best practices and compliance improvements to reduce risk.

Recommendations

  1. Update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to the latest secure versions.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR.
  4. Publish clear contact information including email and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
  5. Consider adding security and incident response policies publicly to enhance trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Advokátní kancelář Mgr. Matouše Hrabala
Description
Law office of Mgr. Matouš Hrabal
Key services
Legal consultancy, Advocacy
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, jQuery
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
45/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a small law office site with minimal content and no privacy or cookie policies.
  2. Uses WordPress CMS with an outdated version and older jQuery library.
  3. No security headers detected, which is a security concern.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on the site.
  5. No social media or external business-related links found.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  7. Site is accessible without WAF or blocking mechanisms.
  8. Content is safe and appropriate for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with Bootstrap and jQuery libraries. The HTML and CSS are valid but the WordPress version (4.1.41) and jQuery (1.11.1) are outdated, posing security risks. The site loads moderate performance scripts and styles, with basic mobile responsiveness. No advanced SEO or accessibility features are detected. Hosting is provided by hosting90.cz, a Czech hosting provider. The site lacks modern technical enhancements such as security headers and analytics integration.
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 akhrabal.cz. 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 akhrabal.cz.

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.