Skip to main content

Security report for bigrat.monster

Private by Design, LLC · Other · United States

Medium risk. 7 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 bigrat.monster is a minimal content site celebrating its 5-year anniversary. It is registered under a privacy protection service, Private by Design, LLC, based in the US. The site lacks business-related content, contact information, or any commercial services, indicating it is likely a personal or niche hobby site rather than a commercial business. The technical infrastructure is basic, with Cloudflare DNS hosting but no DNSSEC enabled and no visible CMS or frameworks. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protections, but lacks security headers and privacy policies. Overall, the site poses low risk but also offers limited trust signals or business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 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

7 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 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

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

Keep watching bigrat.monster

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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
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

The site does not present a clear business model or market positioning. It appears to be a personal or niche site with no evident revenue streams or target customer segments. The use of privacy protection for WHOIS is consistent with a small personal site. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The lack of contact or policy pages limits business transparency and credibility.

Security posture

Security maturity is low to moderate. HTTPS is enabled, and domain status flags prevent unauthorized transfers or deletions. However, the absence of DNSSEC, security headers, privacy policies, and incident response contacts indicates gaps in security best practices and compliance. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the limited content. Incident response readiness and data protection practices are not evident.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Add privacy policy and cookie policy pages to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels to enhance transparency.
  5. Improve website content and structure to increase professionalism and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Private by Design, LLC
Description
The website appears to be a personal or niche site celebrating 5 years of bigrat.monster with minimal content and no clear business description.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare DNS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited and clientDeleteProhibited

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 minimal and primarily a celebratory message for 5 years of the domain.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms present.
  4. No scripts or analytics detected in the HTML content.
  5. Site uses Cloudflare DNS but no DNSSEC enabled.
  6. No security headers detected in provided data.
  7. No external links except Cloudflare and ICANN references in WHOIS data.
  8. No advertising or tracking technologies detected.
  9. No social media or email contacts found.
  10. Website is accessible with no WAF blocking or challenge.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Cloudflare DNS hosting but does not enable DNSSEC, which is a missed security opportunity. The HTML content is minimal with no scripts, forms, or analytics detected, indicating a very basic technical setup. No CMS or frameworks are identified. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic due to minimal content and lack of advanced features. SEO optimization is basic with minimal meta tags and no structured data. Overall, the technical infrastructure is simple and low risk but could benefit from modernization and security enhancements.
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 bigrat.monster. 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 bigrat.monster.

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.