Skip to main content

Security report for amung.us

whos.amung.us Inc. · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

whos.amung.us Inc. operates a niche technology service providing free real-time visitor analytics widgets for websites and blogs. The service allows users to embed customizable widgets without requiring account registration, offering insights such as visitor counts, heatmaps, and popular page tracking. The company also offers a Pro tier with enhanced analytics features. The website is well-branded, consistent, and targets website owners seeking easy-to-use analytics solutions. It has been operational since at least 2007, supported by external media mentions from reputable technology news outlets. Technically, the site uses a modern JavaScript stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and Google Tag Manager, delivering a moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is solid with enforced HTTPS and no visible vulnerabilities, though it lacks some security headers and explicit cookie consent mechanisms, indicating room for improvement in privacy compliance. Contact information is limited to a web form with no direct emails or phone numbers publicly listed. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but could enhance privacy and security transparency.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of amung.us. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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"

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. 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.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching amung.us

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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
70

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 company holds a stable position in the web analytics niche, offering a free service that attracts a broad user base with no limits on pageviews or users online. Revenue likely derives from the Pro subscription tier. The business model focuses on ease of use and immediate deployment without signup barriers. The partnership ecosystem includes mentions in major tech media, enhancing credibility and market reach. Growth indicators include a large number of widgets deployed and active users online. The lack of direct contact details and privacy policy details suggests a lean operational model focused on product delivery rather than extensive customer support. Strategic observations include potential to expand privacy compliance and incident response transparency to meet evolving regulatory requirements.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with mandatory HTTPS and no exposed sensitive data. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerable or outdated libraries were detected in the scripts used. Privacy compliance is basic, lacking cookie consent banners and explicit GDPR statements. Incident response and security policies are not published, which could hinder rapid response to security events. The site does not expose any critical vulnerabilities or signs of compromise. Overall, the security maturity is moderate with clear opportunities for improvement in privacy and policy transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve GDPR and global privacy compliance.
  3. Publish explicit security and incident response policies to increase transparency and preparedness.
  4. Provide direct company contact emails and phone numbers to improve trust and customer support accessibility.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
whos.amung.us Inc.
Description
Free real-time analytics for websites or blogs providing visitor insights, heatmaps, and popular page tracking without requiring account signup.
Key services
Real-time visitor stats widget, Heatmaps and maps of visitor locations, Page popularity tracking, Pro analytics with advanced heatmaps
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap 3.3.7, Fancybox, Animate.css, SweetAlert2, Masonry, Isotope, Fitty, MooTools, Google Tag Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No vulnerable libraries detected in scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website provides free real-time visitor analytics widgets with optional paid Pro features.
  2. No WHOIS data available publicly, indicating privacy protection or registry data unavailability.
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie consent banners detected, potential GDPR compliance gap.
  4. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found; contact via web form only.
  5. Uses modern JavaScript libraries and frameworks for UI and analytics.
  6. No visible security headers detected; HTTPS is enforced.
  7. External links to reputable tech media sites as partners or mentions.
  8. No signs of WAF or content blocking; full content accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs a robust and modern front-end technology stack with widely used libraries such as jQuery, Bootstrap, and Fancybox, ensuring compatibility and ease of maintenance. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and marketing tracking. The site is mobile optimized and uses responsive design principles. Performance is moderate, likely due to multiple external dependencies and scripts. No CMS was detected, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Hosting provider details are not evident from the data. Technical debt appears low, but the absence of some security headers and privacy mechanisms indicates areas for modernization. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business needs effectively but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 70/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with amung.us. 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 amung.us.

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.