Skip to main content

Security report for andrewlohman.com

Andrew Lohman · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Andrew Lohman's website is a minimal personal portfolio showcasing his role as a web and brand designer based in Austin, Texas. The site is simple, with limited content and no interactive features or contact information. It links externally to PCPartPicker, indicating a current principal designer role. The technical infrastructure is basic, relying on standard HTML and CSS without advanced frameworks or CMS. There is no evidence of HTTPS or security headers, which impacts the site's security posture negatively. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, and no contact details or social media links are provided, limiting user engagement and trust signals. Overall, the site appears functional but lacks modern security and compliance features.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

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

Keep watching andrewlohman.com

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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
64

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 website represents an individual professional service provider in the technology sector, specifically web and brand design. The business model is service-oriented, targeting clients seeking design expertise. Market positioning is that of a principal designer with a personal brand focus. The absence of detailed business information, certifications, or partnerships suggests a small-scale operation. There are no indications of revenue streams beyond service offerings or strategic partnerships. The external link to PCPartPicker may indicate professional affiliation or employment. Growth indicators and competitive advantages are not discernible from the site content.

Security posture

The security maturity level of the website is low due to the absence of HTTPS, security headers, and privacy compliance documentation. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected from the provided content, but the lack of security best practices such as secure forms or incident response contacts is notable. The site does not demonstrate readiness for incident response or data protection compliance such as GDPR. The minimal technical implementation and lack of tracking reduce attack surface but also limit user trust. Overall, the security posture requires significant improvement to meet modern standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with data protection regulations.
  3. Include clear contact information and a security incident response contact channel.
  4. Enhance website security by adding standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, etc.).
  5. Improve mobile responsiveness and accessibility to enhance user experience and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Andrew Lohman
Description
Andrew is a web designer
Key services
Web Design, Brand Design
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 simple personal portfolio for a web and brand designer.
  2. Minimal content and no interactive elements or forms present.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links detected.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available from provided data.
  6. External link to pcpartpicker.com is present.
  7. No advertising or analytics scripts detected.
  8. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible domain registration or data retrieval issues.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML5 and CSS3 without any detected JavaScript libraries or frameworks. There is no CMS or hosting provider information available. Performance is likely moderate given the minimal content and lack of heavy scripts. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no advanced features detected. SEO optimization is minimal, relying on basic meta tags. The site lacks modern technical enhancements such as structured data, analytics, or marketing tools. Technical debt appears low due to simplicity but modernization opportunities exist to improve security, compliance, and user engagement.
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 andrewlohman.com. 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 andrewlohman.com.

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.