Skip to main content

Security report for arthurgareginyan.com

Arthur Gareginyan · Technology · Montenegro

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Arthur Gareginyan's website serves as a personal portfolio and professional branding platform for a full stack software engineer based in Montenegro. The site provides information about the individual, including resume, portfolio, blog, and store links, targeting a general audience interested in software engineering services and personal insights. The business model is centered on personal branding and showcasing professional capabilities. Technically, the website employs a traditional HTML/CSS/JavaScript stack with jQuery 1.8.3 and RequireJS for modular script loading. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for visitor tracking, and Adobe Muse fonts are integrated. The site shows moderate performance and basic mobile optimization but uses outdated JavaScript libraries and lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS but lacks visible security headers and employs an outdated jQuery version, which may expose it to vulnerabilities. No cookie consent mechanism or detailed privacy compliance features are present, and no contact information for security incidents is provided. The WHOIS data is missing, raising concerns about domain registration legitimacy. Overall, the website is functional and professional but requires updates to its technical stack, security posture, and privacy compliance to improve trustworthiness and user safety.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

4 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching arthurgareginyan.com

This scan found 20 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
65
Security headers
75
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
73

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 positions Arthur Gareginyan as an individual software engineer with a personal brand. The presence of a portfolio, resume, blog, and store indicates diversified engagement channels. The external linked domains suggest partnerships or personal projects. The business operates in the technology sector with a small scale and targets a broad audience including potential clients and collaborators. The lack of detailed business registration information and missing WHOIS data limit the ability to fully assess business credibility. The site’s content and social media presence support a moderate market position as an independent professional. Revenue streams likely include software services, digital products via the store, and content monetization through the blog. The partnership ecosystem includes e-commerce and blogging platforms. Growth indicators are limited but the consistent branding and social media links suggest ongoing engagement.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is basic. The site uses HTTPS, which is mandatory, but lacks critical security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options. The use of an outdated jQuery version (1.8.3) introduces potential vulnerabilities. No visible mechanisms for cookie consent or GDPR compliance are implemented. The absence of contact information for incident response or security policies further reduces security readiness. There are no signs of malware or phishing, but the missing WHOIS data and lack of domain registration transparency are concerning. The site would benefit from updating libraries, implementing security headers, adding privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms, and publishing incident response contacts to improve security culture and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Update all JavaScript libraries, especially jQuery, to the latest secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Publish clear contact information for security incidents and establish an incident response policy accessible on the website.
  5. Conduct an SSL/TLS configuration review and improve it to achieve an excellent rating on SSL Labs or similar tools.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Arthur Gareginyan
Description
Personal website of Arthur Gareginyan, a full stack software engineer showcasing about me, resume, portfolio, blog, store, contact, and donate pages.
Key services
software engineering services, portfolio showcase, blog content, online store
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, jQuery 1.8.3, RequireJS, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Adobe Muse fonts
Frameworks
RequireJS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by URL)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Cloudflare Insights
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Cloudflare Insights
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Personal portfolio website for a software engineer
  2. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on homepage
  3. Privacy policy page present but no cookie consent mechanism
  4. Use of outdated JavaScript libraries
  5. No visible security headers or advanced security policies
  6. Social media presence across multiple platforms
  7. No WHOIS data available indicating possible recent registration or privacy protection
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using static HTML with CSS and JavaScript, leveraging jQuery 1.8.3 and RequireJS for script management. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are integrated for tracking. Fonts are loaded from Adobe Muse Creative Cloud. The site lacks a CMS and appears self-hosted or hosted on a platform not explicitly identified. Performance is moderate with basic mobile responsiveness and accessibility. SEO is basic with meta tags present but no advanced structured data or JSON-LD. The site uses legacy scripts and could benefit from modernization to improve maintainability and 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 arthurgareginyan.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 arthurgareginyan.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.