Skip to main content

Security report for ance.it

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

45/100

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

The website ance.it is currently inaccessible due to a Wordfence security block that restricts access from certain areas for security reasons. The page presented is a Wordfence-generated block page with no business content, contact information, or policies visible. The domain is longstanding, registered since 1997, indicating an established presence, but no registrant details are publicly available to verify ownership or business legitimacy. The technical infrastructure includes WordPress CMS with Wordfence security plugin active, but no further technical or SEO details can be assessed due to the block. Security posture is partially enforced by Wordfence, but lack of visible security headers and policies limits confidence. Privacy compliance and business credibility cannot be evaluated due to lack of accessible content. Overall, the site is currently not usable for analysis or business engagement.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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

7 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

    • 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

  2. 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: RDP

      Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP 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

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

Keep watching ance.it

This scan found 20 issues across 5 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
Email security
55
DNS health
65
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
25
Average
45

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

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 access block, no business intelligence data such as company name, services, market position, or contact details are available. The domain age suggests a mature entity, but absence of public information and policies limits assessment of business model or competitive advantages. No partnerships or related domains are identified. The site appears to rely on WordPress and Wordfence for platform and security, but no marketing or analytics tools are detected. The lack of accessible content and contact information is a significant limitation for business intelligence.

Security posture

The site employs Wordfence security plugin which is actively blocking access from certain regions, indicating a proactive security stance against potential threats. However, no security headers are visible in the HTML content, and DNSSEC is not enabled on the domain, which are areas for improvement. The absence of privacy and security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms reduces transparency and compliance posture. The security score is limited by the block itself and lack of visible security best practices. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, publishing security policies, and improving incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and trust.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and security policies on the website.
  3. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Provide clear contact information including incident response and data protection officer contacts.
  5. Review and optimize Wordfence settings to balance security with user accessibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Wordfence detected. The page is a Wordfence security block page indicating access has been limited by the site owner for security reasons. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Wordfence
Platforms
WordPress

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Wordfence security plugin

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is fully blocked by Wordfence security plugin.
  2. No business or contact information is publicly accessible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  5. No external links except to wordfence.com for documentation.
  6. No social media or contact emails found.
  7. Domain is old and appears legitimate but lacks public registrant info.
  8. Security posture is partially enforced via Wordfence but lacks visible headers or policies.
  9. Content quality and user experience cannot be assessed due to block.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS and protected by the Wordfence security plugin, which currently blocks access to visitors from certain regions. No additional scripts, analytics, or advertising technologies are detected. The HTML is valid and styled with embedded CSS. The site lacks DNSSEC and visible security headers. Performance, mobile optimization, and SEO cannot be assessed due to the block page. The technical stack is basic but includes a widely used security plugin. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not discernible from the content.
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 ance.it. 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 ance.it.

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.