Skip to main content

Security report for aracahq.com

Araca HQ · Other · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Araca HQ operates a minimalistic website with a simple landing page that offers a 'Request Access' link but lacks detailed business descriptions, contact information, or policies. The domain is registered since 2016 with GoDaddy and uses DNS Made Easy for DNS services. The site employs New Relic Browser for performance monitoring and analytics but does not implement DNSSEC or security headers, which are recommended for enhanced security. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies indicates low privacy compliance. Overall, the website's content and design quality are poor, limiting user trust and engagement.

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

10 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 aracahq.com

This scan found 27 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
35
Average
47

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 provides minimal insight into the company's market positioning, business model, or target audience. The lack of contact details and business descriptions suggests a restricted or invite-only service model. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The domain age is consistent with a small or early-stage business. The absence of trust indicators such as certifications or testimonials limits credibility.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS but lacks DNSSEC and security headers, which are important for protecting against DNS spoofing and common web attacks. No incident response or security policy information is provided. The use of New Relic indicates some level of monitoring, but the overall security posture is basic. The domain status flags provide protection against unauthorized changes, which is positive. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, and publishing security and privacy policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security and integrity.
  2. Implement essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to enhance compliance and user trust.
  4. Add clear contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and support.
  5. Improve website content quality and design to better communicate business value and professionalism.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Araca HQ
Description
No explicit business description found on the homepage. The site presents a minimal landing page with a title and a 'Request Access' link, indicating a possible invite-only or restricted access service.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
New Relic Browser Agent
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
New Relic Browser
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
New Relic
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a minimal landing page with no detailed business or contact information.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses provided.
  4. Uses New Relic for performance monitoring and analytics.
  5. No security headers detected; DNSSEC not enabled.
  6. Domain is registered with GoDaddy since 2016 and expires soon.
  7. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms.
  8. Content safety is rated safe with no adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a minimal HTML structure with inline CSS and Google Fonts. It integrates New Relic Browser agent scripts for analytics and performance monitoring. The domain is registered with GoDaddy and uses DNS Made Easy for DNS services. No CMS or major frameworks are detected. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization. SEO and accessibility features are minimal or absent. The site lacks advanced technical configurations such as DNSSEC and security headers, which are recommended for modern web security.
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 aracahq.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 aracahq.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.