Skip to main content

Security report for azica.gov

Government · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website azica.gov appears to be a government domain registered since 2013, hosted on AWS infrastructure and protected by Cloudflare's security services. However, the actual website content is inaccessible due to a Cloudflare Turnstile challenge page, which blocks direct access to any business or informational content. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are publicly visible, nor are there any contact details or forms. The domain WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is common for government domains, but no registrant details are available for verification. The technical infrastructure shows use of modern cloud DNS and security services but lacks DNSSEC and visible security headers. Overall, the site is legitimate but currently inaccessible for detailed analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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. 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 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 azica.gov

This scan found 23 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
57
Security headers
55
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
64

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 WAF challenge blocking content, no detailed business intelligence can be extracted. The domain is government-related, likely serving a public sector function. The lack of visible content or contact information limits insights into market positioning, services, or partnerships. The domain age and registrar suggest a stable entity, but no further business details are available.

Security posture

The security posture is partially observable. The site uses HTTPS and Cloudflare's security platform including Turnstile CAPTCHA, indicating a focus on mitigating automated attacks and abuse. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers reduces the overall security maturity. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data are visible due to content blocking. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available, limiting assessment of compliance and readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and trust.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and transparency.
  3. Provide accessible contact information including security incident response contacts.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Consider reducing WAF challenge strictness or providing alternative access methods to improve user experience and enable external analysis.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. Detected Cloudflare Turnstile challenge page indicating WAF/security challenge blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare Turnstile
SEO
poor

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 inaccessible due to Cloudflare Turnstile security challenge.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the landing page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  4. No forms or data collection fields visible.
  5. No social media or external business links found except Cloudflare and AWS DNS domains.
  6. WHOIS data is privacy protected but domain age and registrar are consistent with a government entity.
  7. No security headers or advanced security configurations visible in the HTML content.
  8. Website appears to be a government domain but content is blocked by WAF.
  9. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond Cloudflare challenge.
  10. No evidence of adult or unsafe content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on AWS infrastructure with DNS managed by Amazon Route 53 nameservers. It employs Cloudflare's Turnstile CAPTCHA for bot mitigation, indicating use of modern security technologies. The HTML content is minimal and serves only as a challenge page, lacking any SEO metadata, structured data, or business content. No CMS or frameworks are detectable. Performance and accessibility cannot be assessed due to content blocking. The site lacks DNSSEC and security headers, which are recommended for improved security posture.
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 azica.gov. 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 azica.gov.

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.