Skip to main content

Security report for armadaskis.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website armadaskis.com is currently inaccessible due to a PerimeterX CAPTCHA challenge, which acts as a bot mitigation and security mechanism. This prevents access to any meaningful content, business information, or user interaction elements. The site appears to be protected by a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or similar security service, blocking automated or suspicious traffic. Consequently, no privacy policies, contact details, or business descriptions are available for analysis. The technical infrastructure includes JavaScript-based CAPTCHA and external resources from PerimeterX and Google Fonts, but no CMS or analytics tools are detectable. The security posture shows the presence of bot mitigation but lacks visible security headers or SSL configuration details. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, business credibility, and privacy compliance due to the lack of accessible information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 100 · Critical
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. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching armadaskis.com

This scan found 19 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
0
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
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

Due to the complete blocking of website content by the security challenge, no business intelligence data such as company name, market position, services, or sector can be extracted. There are no visible partnerships, subsidiaries, or contact channels. The domain uses privacy protection for WHOIS data, which is consistent with the lack of public business information. This limits the ability to assess the company's market presence or competitive advantages.

Security posture

The website employs PerimeterX technology to mitigate bots and automated threats, indicating a proactive security approach. However, the absence of visible security headers, privacy policies, or incident response contacts suggests gaps in comprehensive security and compliance practices. The CAPTCHA challenge effectively blocks unauthorized access but also prevents legitimate content delivery for analysis. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data are observable due to the blocked content. The security score is limited by the lack of transparency and accessible information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a user-friendly access mechanism that balances security with legitimate user access to enable content visibility.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Add visible contact information and business details to enhance credibility and customer engagement.
  4. Ensure security headers and HTTPS are properly configured and publicly verifiable.
  5. Consider providing a security.txt file and incident response contacts to improve transparency and security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is blocked by a PerimeterX CAPTCHA challenge indicating bot mitigation/WAF protection. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, PerimeterX, Roboto font, iframe
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of PerimeterX bot mitigation and CAPTCHA challenge

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is fully blocked by a PerimeterX CAPTCHA challenge.
  2. No visible business, contact, or policy information available.
  3. No forms or user input fields detected beyond CAPTCHA.
  4. No metadata beyond basic description and title indicating access denial.
  5. External resources are limited to PerimeterX and Google Fonts domains.
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  7. No social media or external business links found.
  8. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website relies on PerimeterX for bot mitigation, loading JavaScript CAPTCHA scripts and Google Fonts. No CMS or analytics platforms are detected. The site lacks visible metadata beyond a basic description and title indicating access denial. Performance and accessibility cannot be fully assessed due to blocked content. Mobile optimization is basic as the CAPTCHA container adjusts for screen sizes. SEO optimization is poor given the absence of meaningful content and metadata. The technical implementation is modern in terms of bot mitigation but limited in overall digital maturity.
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 armadaskis.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 armadaskis.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.