Skip to main content

Security report for app.cg

Common Ground · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Common Ground is a web3 community platform aimed at serving users interested in blockchain and decentralized technologies. The website presents a minimal but consistent branding and content focused on the web3 community, with a clear emphasis on technology and community engagement. The platform appears to be in early or growth stages given the limited content and lack of detailed business information. Technically, the site uses modern frontend technologies such as React and Google Fonts, ensuring a responsive and moderately optimized user experience. However, the absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies indicates gaps in compliance and user trust mechanisms. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced, but lacks important security headers and incident response contact information, which are critical for a platform dealing with web3 users. Overall, the site is safe with no adult or questionable content detected, but improvements in privacy compliance and security best practices are recommended to enhance trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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. 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
  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

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching app.cg

This scan found 22 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
55
Email security
50
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
66

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention app.cg, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
619
Employees
0
Customers
619
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
11%

10 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for app.cg.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The business operates in the technology sector, specifically targeting the web3 community. Its business model revolves around providing a community platform for blockchain enthusiasts and users. The lack of detailed company information, contact details, and policies suggests a startup or early-stage project. The market positioning is not explicitly stated, but the focus on web3 indicates targeting a niche but growing market segment. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the data. The platform's competitive advantage may lie in its community focus within the web3 ecosystem. Revenue streams and growth indicators are not discernible from the current data. Strategic observations include the need to establish clearer business credibility through published policies and contact information to build user trust.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic security posture with HTTPS enabled, ensuring encrypted communications. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No forms or input fields were detected, minimizing immediate risks of injection attacks, but also indicating limited user interaction features. The lack of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file suggests limited readiness for incident response and external security reporting. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified. Compliance gaps exist due to missing privacy and cookie policies, which are important for GDPR and other regulations. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires enhancements to meet best practices and regulatory expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against web vulnerabilities.
  3. Provide clear contact information including security incident response contacts to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and SEO optimization to improve user experience and discoverability.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Common Ground
Description
The web3 community platform
Key services
web3 community platform
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, JavaScript, CSS, Google Fonts
Frameworks
React
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No visible sensitive data exposure

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 web3 community platform named Common Ground.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the main page.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the HTML content.
  4. No forms detected for user input or contact.
  5. Uses modern frontend technologies including React and Google Fonts.
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  7. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  8. HTTPS is enforced with valid SSL as inferred from URL scheme.
  9. No social media links except Twitter handle in meta tags (@CommonGround_cg).
  10. No JSON-LD structured data found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using React, leveraging modern JavaScript and CSS technologies, and uses Google Fonts for typography. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design elements and basic accessibility considerations. Performance is moderate, with deferred JavaScript loading and minimal external dependencies. No CMS or backend technologies are explicitly detected. Hosting provider details are not available from the provided data. The site lacks analytics and advertising scripts, indicating minimal tracking and marketing tools in use. Technical debt appears low but the absence of security headers and compliance policies suggests areas for modernization and risk mitigation. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a functional and modern web3 community platform but requires enhancements in security and compliance domains.
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 app.cg. 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 app.cg.

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.