Skip to main content

Security report for alpcot.se

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.alpcot.se currently presents minimal accessible content, displaying an error message indicating the page could not be loaded. The site is built using modern technologies such as Blazor server-side framework, Radzen components, and Bootstrap CSS for styling. PostHog analytics is integrated for user behavior tracking. However, the lack of visible business information, contact details, and policy documents significantly limits the ability to assess the company's market position or business model. The domain queried (www.alpcot.se) is a subdomain, with no WHOIS data found, which reduces trustworthiness and raises questions about domain registration consistency. From a technical perspective, the site implements a Content-Security-Policy header and enforces HTTPS, which are positive security indicators. Nevertheless, the absence of privacy and cookie policies, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms highlights compliance gaps. The user experience is poor due to the error page and lack of navigable content, and SEO and accessibility optimizations are minimal. Security posture is moderate with basic best practices in place but lacks comprehensive policies and contact channels for security incidents. Overall, the website's risk profile is elevated due to minimal content, lack of transparency, and incomplete compliance documentation. Strategic improvements are needed to enhance trust, compliance, and user experience.

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

8 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

    • 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

  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 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 alpcot.se

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
82
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
61

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

Due to the absence of explicit business information on the website and no WHOIS registrant data for the queried subdomain, detailed business intelligence is limited. The site appears to be associated with the domain alpcot.se, which may represent the main registered domain. The integration of payment-related external domains such as trustly.com and tink.com suggests involvement in financial or payment services. However, no direct evidence of company size, market positioning, or revenue streams is available. The lack of contact information and policy documents further limits insights into customer segments or partnership ecosystems.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with HTTPS enabled and a strict Content-Security-Policy header configured to restrict resource loading to trusted domains. The use of PostHog analytics indicates user tracking, but no privacy or cookie consent mechanisms are present, which is a compliance concern under GDPR. No forms or input fields were detected to evaluate secure data handling. The absence of incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure policies suggests limited readiness for security incidents. Overall, the security maturity is low to moderate, with significant room for improvement in compliance and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit user consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR.
  2. Add clear contact information including business addresses, phone numbers, and emails to improve trust and business credibility.
  3. Establish and disclose incident response and vulnerability disclosure procedures to enhance security posture and transparency.
  4. Improve website content quality and navigation to provide meaningful information to visitors and improve user experience.
  5. Enhance SEO and accessibility features to increase site visibility and usability across devices.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Blazor, Radzen.Blazor, Bootstrap, PostHog
Frameworks
Blazor
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • Content-Security-Policy header present
  • HTTPS enforced

Analytics and tracking

Services
PostHog
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
PostHog
Marketing tools
PostHog
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and shows an error message indicating the page could not load.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details are present on the page.
  4. Site uses Blazor server-side framework with Radzen components and Bootstrap CSS.
  5. PostHog analytics is integrated for user tracking.
  6. Content-Security-Policy header is implemented with multiple allowed sources.
  7. No WHOIS data found for the queried domain www.alpcot.se, indicating it is a subdomain.
  8. External domains linked include payment processors and analytics services.
  9. No signs of WAF or security blocking detected.
  10. Overall website quality and trustworthiness are low due to minimal content and lack of business info.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Blazor server-side framework with Radzen UI components and Bootstrap for styling, indicating a contemporary tech stack. PostHog is used for analytics and user behavior tracking. The site enforces HTTPS and uses a detailed Content-Security-Policy header to restrict resource loading, which is a strong security practice. However, the site currently serves an error page with minimal content, indicating possible backend or connectivity issues. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible from the HTML content. Performance is moderate given the use of modern frameworks but limited content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with room for improvement.
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 alpcot.se. 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 alpcot.se.

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.