Skip to main content

Security report for cebra.online

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website cebra.online presents a minimal placeholder page with only a logo displayed and no substantive content or business information. The domain is registered with IONOS SE since 2020, indicating a relatively new or small-scale operation. There is no metadata, no privacy or cookie policies, no contact information, and no forms or interactive elements, which limits the ability to assess the business or its services. The technical infrastructure is basic with no advanced frameworks or CMS detected, and no analytics or tracking scripts are present. Security posture is minimal with no DNSSEC enabled and no security headers detected. Overall, the site lacks transparency and trust signals, which impacts its credibility and compliance standing.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

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 cebra.online

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. See sample alerts.

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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
53

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 absence of business-related content, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be identified. The domain age and registrar suggest a legitimate registration but no further business intelligence can be derived from the site content. There are no partnerships, certifications, or trust indicators visible. The site appears to be either under development or used as a placeholder.

Security posture

The security posture is weak with no DNSSEC, no security headers, and no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. The site uses HTTPS (assumed from domain registrar standards but not explicitly confirmed in content), but lacks privacy and cookie policies, which is a compliance gap. No forms or data collection mechanisms reduce risk of data leakage but also indicate minimal engagement. Recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, and publishing privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and trust.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and improve user trust.
  4. Add clear contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and security readiness.
  5. Enhance website content and SEO metadata to improve business credibility and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
consistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and acts as a placeholder with only a logo displayed.
  2. No metadata beyond basic charset and viewport tags; no SEO or social media tags present.
  3. No forms, no contact information, no privacy or cookie policies found.
  4. No external links except for DNS name servers and ICANN reference in WHOIS status.
  5. No scripts beyond basic viewport resizing; no analytics or tracking detected.
  6. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected in provided data.
  7. Domain registration is valid and consistent but lacks additional trust signals.
  8. Website is not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms but lacks substantive content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML and CSS with inline styles and a base64-encoded SVG logo. No CMS or JavaScript frameworks are detected beyond a simple viewport resizing script. Hosting is provided by IONOS SE, a reputable provider. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content. Mobile optimization is basic with some responsive CSS rules. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meta tags and structured data. Accessibility is basic with no ARIA roles or landmarks detected. The site is minimal and does not leverage modern web technologies or analytics.
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 cebra.online. 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 cebra.online.

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.