Skip to main content

Security report for arcos-lamersasociados.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'samurai138' hosted on the domain arcos-lamersasociados.com is a minimal WordPress blog with default sample content and no clear business description or services. The domain WHOIS data is suspicious due to a future creation date and lack of registrant information, which undermines trust in the domain's legitimacy. Technically, the site uses WordPress and is hosted behind Cloudflare DNS, with HTTPS enabled but lacks security headers and privacy compliance mechanisms. There are no forms or contact details, limiting user engagement and trust. Overall, the site is basic and lacks professional business presence or security maturity.

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. 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 arcos-lamersasociados.com

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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
62

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 site does not provide any identifiable business information, services, or market positioning. It appears to be a placeholder or test site with no clear target audience beyond general visitors. There are no trust indicators, certifications, or contact details. The domain registration data is inconsistent, suggesting the site is not yet operational as a legitimate business entity.

Security posture

Security posture is minimal with HTTPS enabled but no additional security headers or policies. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The domain lacks DNSSEC, and the WHOIS data is suspicious. No forms or inputs reduce attack surface but also limit functionality.

Recommendations

  1. Correct and update WHOIS domain registration data to reflect accurate creation date and registrant information.
  2. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add contact information including business address, phone, and email to improve credibility and user trust.
  4. Enhance security by adding HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Develop meaningful website content describing business services, market positioning, and trust indicators to improve professionalism and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a WordPress blog with a default sample post. No specific business description or services are provided.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, JavaScript, CSS, HTML
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a basic WordPress blog with default sample content
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No contact information or business details provided
  4. No security headers detected
  5. HTTPS is enabled
  6. Domain WHOIS data appears incorrect or placeholder with future creation date
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  8. No advertising or marketing tools detected
  9. No forms or data collection mechanisms present
  10. Website content is safe and suitable for general audiences
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with standard JavaScript and CSS. It uses Cloudflare DNS but does not enable DNSSEC. The site loads moderate performance CSS and JS assets from a related domain (udang88a.com). The HTML is valid and includes accessibility features like skip links. However, SEO and metadata are minimal with no Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data present. No analytics or tracking scripts are detected, indicating minimal data collection. The site is mobile optimized with basic responsive design.
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 arcos-lamersasociados.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 arcos-lamersasociados.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.