Skip to main content

Security report for attac.org

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website attac.org is currently under construction and displays only a placeholder page with minimal content. There is no business description, contact information, or policies available on the site. The domain is registered with Gandi SAS since 1998, indicating a longstanding registration, but the website itself does not reflect an active or mature business presence. Technically, the site uses the SPIP CMS version 4.4.5 and lacks advanced security headers or privacy compliance features. No analytics, advertising, or tracking technologies are detected, and no external or social media links are present. The security posture is basic with no evident vulnerabilities but also no advanced protections. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, privacy compliance, and business credibility due to the lack of substantive content and policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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

5 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.

    • 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

  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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • 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 attac.org

This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
52
Email security
95
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 attac.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
85
Employees
0
Customers
84
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
49%

12 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 attac.org.

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

Due to the absence of business information, contact details, or service descriptions, it is not possible to provide meaningful business intelligence. The domain age suggests potential for an established entity, but the current website does not support this. No partnerships, certifications, or market positioning data are available. The business model, target audience, and revenue streams cannot be determined from the available data.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal with no HTTPS status explicitly confirmed but assumed given modern standards. No security headers or incident response contacts are present. There are no signs of vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data, but also no evidence of proactive security measures. The lack of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are absent.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL certificate and ensure HTTPS is enforced.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Publish clear contact information and business details to improve credibility.
  4. Enhance website content with relevant business descriptions and services.
  5. Implement standard security headers and consider DNSSEC to improve domain security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
No business description available; website is under construction with placeholder content only.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
SPIP 4.4.5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 is currently under construction with placeholder content only.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details provided on the site.
  4. No security headers or advanced security features detected.
  5. Domain is old and registered with a reputable registrar, but website content does not reflect an active business presence.
  6. No analytics, advertising, or tracking technologies detected.
  7. No social media or external links present in the HTML content.
  8. Site uses SPIP CMS version 4.4.5.
  9. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  10. No evidence of WAF or blocking mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on SPIP CMS version 4.4.5, with basic CSS styling and minimal JavaScript. The site is currently a placeholder with no forms or interactive elements. Hosting appears to be with Gandi SAS, inferred from registrar and nameservers. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but limited by the lack of content. SEO optimization is poor due to absence of meta tags beyond basic charset and viewport. No analytics or marketing tools are detected.
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 attac.org. 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 attac.org.

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.