Skip to main content

Security report for aphrodite.dev

Other · N/a

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

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Aphrodite.dev is a personal creative website operated by an individual named Artémis, serving as a blog and portfolio for writings, projects, and photo galleries. The site targets a mature audience with explicit NSFW content warnings and offers financial support options via BuyMeACoffee. The website is a niche personal project rather than a commercial business, emphasizing creative expression and community links. Technically, the site is built with simple HTML and CSS, uses Atom feeds for content syndication, and references AGE encryption for secure communication. The site is lightweight, fast, and mobile-optimized but lacks advanced frameworks or CMS. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but missing explicit security headers and policies. Privacy compliance is low due to absence of privacy and cookie policies. No forms or user data collection mechanisms are present, reducing attack surface. Overall, the site is trustworthy for its purpose but could improve security and compliance documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 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"

    • 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';…

  2. 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching aphrodite.dev

This scan found 24 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
52

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 operates as a personal creative outlet with no commercial business entity disclosed. It leverages community and friendly site partnerships to enhance reach. Revenue streams appear limited to voluntary donations. The target audience is mature adults interested in personal blogs with NSFW content. The business model is informal and content-driven without e-commerce or advertising. The open source nature of the site code and use of AGE encryption indicate a privacy-conscious operator. The site’s market position is niche and personal, with no parent or subsidiary companies. Growth indicators are limited but the site maintains a consistent brand and content quality.

Security posture

Security maturity is basic to moderate. HTTPS is used but no explicit security headers like CSP or HSTS are detected. No forms reduce risk of injection or data leakage. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. The use of AGE encryption key suggests some awareness of secure communication. No known vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data found. Recommendations include adding security headers, privacy documentation, and incident response contacts to improve posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a privacy policy and cookie policy to improve compliance.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Provide clear contact information for security incidents or abuse reporting.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and SEO metadata for broader reach and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Personal blog and creative space by Artémis featuring writings, projects, photo gallery, and link collections. Contains NSFW content warnings.
Key services
Personal blog, Stories and writings, Notebook of recipes, projects, and documentation, Photo gallery, Link garden
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, Atom XML feeds, AGE encryption (mentioned), No JavaScript frameworks detected
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by og:url https)
  • No forms detected to collect sensitive data
  • No exposed credentials or sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Personal creative blog with NSFW content warnings
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No forms or user data collection detected
  4. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy
  5. No explicit contact emails besides author meta tag
  6. Open source code linked, indicating transparency
  7. Multiple external friendly and related sites linked
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected
  9. No social media links except hidden rel=me links to Mastodon instances
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple, static HTML and CSS stack with no detected JavaScript frameworks or CMS. Atom XML feeds are used for content syndication. The site is fast and mobile-optimized but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Hosting provider and SSL details are not explicitly identified but HTTPS is used. The site source code is openly available on a public git repository, indicating transparency and ease of maintenance. Technical risks are low due to minimal complexity but modernization opportunities exist in adding security headers, privacy compliance, and accessibility improvements.
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 aphrodite.dev. 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 aphrodite.dev.

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.