Skip to main content

Security report for automagic.gmbh

Other

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.automagic.gmbh is currently inaccessible or heavily restricted by security mechanisms, as indicated by the malformed WHOIS response and the truncated, obfuscated HTML content. Due to this blocking, no meaningful business information, contact details, or technical infrastructure data could be extracted. The lack of accessible content and WHOIS data limits the ability to assess the company's market position, services, or compliance posture. From a security perspective, the absence of visible security headers, SSL details, or privacy policies suggests that a comprehensive security evaluation is not feasible at this time. Overall, the site appears to be protected by a generic WAF or security layer that restricts external analysis, resulting in a low trust and legitimacy score.

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

6 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"

    • 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';…

  2. 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

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

Keep watching automagic.gmbh

This scan found 26 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. See sample alerts.

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
62
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
63

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 lack of accessible content and absence of structured data or metadata, no business intelligence insights can be derived. There is no evidence of company branding, market positioning, or service offerings. The domain's WHOIS data is unavailable, which further obscures the business identity and legitimacy. Without contact information or business descriptions, it is not possible to analyze revenue streams, target segments, or partnership ecosystems.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully assessed due to the content being blocked or inaccessible. No security headers or SSL configuration details were found. The presence of a WAF or security mechanism is inferred from the malformed WHOIS response and obfuscated content, which may indicate a proactive security approach to prevent automated scraping or attacks. However, the lack of visible privacy policies, cookie consent, or incident response information suggests gaps in transparency and compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, but this is due to limited visibility rather than confirmed security.

Recommendations

  1. Engage with the hosting or security provider to allow legitimate security and compliance scans to improve transparency.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to demonstrate GDPR compliance and build user trust.
  3. Provide accessible contact information including security incident response contacts to enhance trustworthiness.
  4. Ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available to improve domain legitimacy and trust scores.
  5. Implement and disclose security best practices such as security headers and SSL configuration details.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. WHOIS query returned 'Malformed request.' and the HTML content is truncated and heavily obfuscated with no meaningful content, indicating likely blocking by a security mechanism or WAF. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Technology

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible or blocked by security mechanisms.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, preventing domain age and ownership verification.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  4. No contact information or business details found in the accessible content.
  5. No external links or social media links detected.
  6. No scripts or technologies could be reliably identified due to content blocking.
  7. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  8. No security headers or SSL configuration details available.
  9. Content safety rating is safe based on accessible content, but content is minimal.
  10. Analysis incomplete due to WAF/security mechanisms. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com
Technical notes

Notes

The technical infrastructure cannot be reliably analyzed due to the website content being blocked or heavily obfuscated. No CMS, frameworks, or hosting provider information could be identified. The site appears to be built on Wix platform as indicated by meta tags and script URLs, but performance, accessibility, and SEO optimization cannot be assessed. The presence of advanced JavaScript bundles and polyfills suggests modern frontend technologies, but their effectiveness and security cannot be evaluated without full content access.
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 automagic.gmbh. 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 automagic.gmbh.

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.