Skip to main content

Security report for c-x.one

Private by Design, LLC · Other · United States

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website c-x.one is registered to Private by Design, LLC, a US-based entity established in 2020. The site itself contains only minimal content with no metadata, no business description, no contact information, and no visible security or privacy policies. The domain is hosted with Cloudflare DNS but lacks DNSSEC and HTTPS details are unknown. There is no evidence of modern web technologies or frameworks in use. Security posture is weak due to lack of security headers and policies, and privacy compliance is absent. Overall, the website appears to be either under development or abandoned, providing no meaningful information or trust signals to visitors.

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

9 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 c-x.one

This scan found 25 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
45
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
58

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

Given the minimal content and lack of business information, it is difficult to ascertain the company's market positioning or business model. The registrant name suggests a privacy-focused entity, but no supporting content or services are visible. There are no indications of partnerships, certifications, or customer engagement. The domain age is consistent with a small or startup business, but the lack of content and contact details limits credibility and growth potential.

Security posture

The security posture is currently low due to missing HTTPS confirmation, absence of security headers, and no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a missed opportunity to enhance domain security. No forms or data collection mechanisms are present, reducing attack surface but also indicating lack of business functionality. The site does not appear to be protected by a WAF or other security challenge mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and configure strong cipher suites.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Publish clear contact information and incident response channels to improve trust and compliance.
  5. Enhance website content with business descriptions, services, and professional design to improve credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Private by Design, LLC
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare DNS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
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 content is extremely minimal with only text 'c-x.one s3' in body.
  2. No metadata, no forms, no external links, no scripts detected.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or social media links present.
  5. Domain is registered with Porkbun by Private by Design, LLC in US, created in 2020.
  6. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a security improvement opportunity.
  7. Name servers are Cloudflare, but no Cloudflare WAF challenge detected.
  8. Website lacks any meaningful business or security information.
  9. No evidence of tracking, analytics, or advertising.
  10. Content safety is rated safe due to lack of content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Cloudflare DNS but no other detectable technologies or CMS. The HTML content is minimal and lacks metadata, scripts, or stylesheets. No analytics or tracking scripts are present. The site performance and mobile optimization cannot be fully assessed due to lack of content. Accessibility and SEO are poor due to missing semantic markup and metadata. The technical infrastructure appears basic and underdeveloped, with opportunities for modernization and security improvements.
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 c-x.one. 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 c-x.one.

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.