Skip to main content

Security report for bikereg.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website www.bikereg.com appears to be an event registration platform focused on biking events. The site integrates multiple third-party analytics and tracking technologies such as Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Datadog RUM, and Google Tag Manager, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about the domain's legitimacy and trustworthiness. The website lacks critical compliance documents such as privacy policies, cookie policies, and terms of service, which negatively impacts its privacy compliance score. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled and use of reCAPTCHA, but no advanced security headers or incident response information is present. Overall, the site provides basic functionality but requires significant improvements in transparency, compliance, and trust indicators.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 bikereg.com

This scan found 9 issues across 4 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
Email security
87
DNS health
80
Network security
100
Average
86
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: 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

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The business operates in the event registration sector, targeting biking enthusiasts and organizers. The business model likely revolves around providing online registration services for biking events. The lack of visible company information, contact details, and certifications limits the ability to assess market position or growth indicators. The use of cloud hosting (Amazon CloudFront) and modern analytics tools suggests some investment in infrastructure. However, the missing WHOIS data and absence of privacy and security policies indicate potential risks in business credibility and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates reCAPTCHA to protect forms, which are positive security practices. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces the overall security posture. No evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response mechanisms was found. The extensive use of third-party tracking scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. The missing WHOIS data and lack of transparency about the registrant further reduce trust. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires enhancements in policy transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add terms of service and incident response information to enhance transparency and preparedness.
  3. Improve security headers configuration to protect against common web vulnerabilities.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and trustworthiness.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility with verified company emails and phone numbers.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Datadog RUM, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA, RudderLabs
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of reCAPTCHA for forms

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Datadog RUM, Facebook Pixel, Google Tag Manager, RudderLabs
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Facebook Pixel
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Datadog RUM, RudderLabs
Marketing tools
RudderLabs
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and does not show WAF or security challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible domain registration issues.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the content.
  5. Site uses multiple third-party analytics and tracking scripts.
  6. Site content is minimal and focused on event registration.
  7. No security headers detected in the provided data.
  8. Site uses HTTPS and reCAPTCHA for form security.
  9. No evidence of certifications or security frameworks.
  10. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript-based tech stack with integrations for analytics and user tracking. Hosting is via Amazon CloudFront CDN, which supports performance and scalability. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design. However, the absence of a detected CMS suggests a custom or proprietary platform. Performance is moderate with multiple external scripts that may impact load times. Accessibility and SEO optimizations are basic, with room for improvement in metadata completeness and semantic markup. Technical debt is moderate due to missing security headers and compliance documents.
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 bikereg.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 bikereg.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.