Skip to main content

Security report for cakewrecks.com

Cake Wrecks · Media · United States

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Cake Wrecks is a niche humor blog focused on showcasing professional cake fails, started in 2008 by Jen. The site operates primarily as a content publishing platform with monetization through advertising and affiliate marketing. The blog targets a general audience interested in humorous and quirky cake-related content. Technically, the website is built on the Squarespace platform, leveraging its CMS and hosting services, with integration of Google Fonts and BlogHer advertising. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices but lacks advanced accessibility features. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but missing key security headers such as HSTS and Content Security Policy, which could be improved to enhance protection. Privacy compliance is minimal, with no visible privacy or cookie policies, which is a gap for GDPR and other regulations. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable, which reduces trust in domain legitimacy, though the website content and social media presence support its authenticity as a small personal blog. Overall, the site is functional and professional for its niche but would benefit from enhanced security and privacy measures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  2. 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';…

  3. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching cakewrecks.com

This scan found 24 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
62
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
68

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 blog operates in the media sector as a small independent content creator with a focus on humor and entertainment. Its business model relies on content engagement and monetization through ad networks like BlogHer and affiliate links such as Amazon. The target audience is broad, encompassing general internet users interested in lighthearted cake mishaps. The site maintains consistent branding and a good quality of content, supporting moderate trustworthiness. There is no indication of parent or subsidiary companies, and the site appears to be self-managed. The lack of formal business contact information and privacy policies suggests a casual operational approach rather than a corporate structure.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications, which is a fundamental security measure. However, it lacks several important HTTP security headers including HSTS, Content Security Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options, which are recommended to mitigate common web vulnerabilities such as protocol downgrade attacks, cross-site scripting, MIME sniffing, and clickjacking. No evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries was found in the provided content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with data protection regulations like GDPR. Incident response and security policy information are not present, limiting the site's preparedness for security events. Overall, the security posture is basic and could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers and privacy controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) to enforce HTTPS usage.
  2. Add a Content Security Policy (CSP) header to reduce cross-site scripting risks.
  3. Include X-Content-Type-Options and X-Frame-Options headers to prevent MIME sniffing and clickjacking.
  4. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance with GDPR and other privacy laws.
  5. Establish and communicate an incident response plan and security policy to enhance security culture and readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Cake Wrecks
Description
Jen started this blog in May of 2008 one night when she was bored. She honestly never thought anyone would read it. She's also not very good at picking Lottery ...
Key services
blog content publishing, advertising, affiliate marketing
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Squarespace, YUI3, Google Fonts, Google Funding Choices, BlogHer Ads
Frameworks
Squarespace CMS
Platforms
Squarespace Hosting
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
BlogHer Ads, Google DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Google Funding Choices
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a humor blog focused on cake fails.
  2. Content is accessible and not blocked by WAF.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on site.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  5. Uses Squarespace CMS and hosting.
  6. Advertising via BlogHer and Amazon affiliate links present.
  7. No advanced security headers detected; HTTPS is enabled.
  8. WHOIS data unavailable, reducing domain trustworthiness.
  9. Content is safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Squarespace, a popular website builder and hosting platform, which simplifies content management and deployment. It uses YUI3 JavaScript libraries, Google Fonts, and integrates advertising scripts from BlogHer and Google DoubleClick. The site loads multiple compressed CSS and JS assets for performance optimization. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive design and image scaling. Accessibility features are basic, with no explicit ARIA roles or advanced accessibility markup detected. SEO is supported through meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data for the website. Performance is moderate, with some external dependencies that could impact load times. The technical stack is modern but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.
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 cakewrecks.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 cakewrecks.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.