Skip to main content

Security report for checkfelix.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.checkfelix.com currently presents a CAPTCHA challenge page requiring user verification, indicating the presence of bot mitigation or WAF security controls. This limits direct access to the site's content and business information. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable, suggesting the domain may be newly registered, unregistered, or protected by privacy services. The site uses Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise technology to prevent automated access, but lacks visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies. Technical infrastructure appears basic with moderate performance and minimal SEO or accessibility features. Security posture is limited to CAPTCHA usage without visible security headers or HTTPS confirmation in the provided data. Overall, the site is low in trustworthiness and business credibility due to lack of accessible content and registration transparency.

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

6 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 checkfelix.com

This scan found 16 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
95
Security headers
20
Email security
87
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
74

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

Checkfelix appears to be part of a group of travel-related brands including Cheapflights, Kayak, Momondo, Swoodoo, and Mundi, as indicated by shared branding assets. The business likely operates in the online travel or flight search sector targeting general consumers. However, no direct business information, contact details, or policies are accessible on this CAPTCHA page. The domain's lack of WHOIS data and content blocking reduces confidence in its operational transparency. The partnership ecosystem is inferred from branding but not explicitly confirmed. Growth indicators and revenue streams cannot be assessed from the current data.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise to mitigate automated bot traffic, which is a positive security control. However, no other security headers or HTTPS status are visible in the provided content, limiting the assessment of overall security maturity. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not found. The CAPTCHA challenge itself may impact user experience and accessibility. Overall, the security posture is basic with room for significant improvements in transparency, compliance, and technical security controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with strong TLS configuration and certificate management.
  2. Publish clear and comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Provide accessible contact information and business details to enhance credibility.
  5. Consider improving SEO, accessibility, and user experience to reduce reliance on CAPTCHA challenges.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a CAPTCHA challenge page requiring user verification, indicating a WAF or bot mitigation mechanism is active. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, Fetch API, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for bot mitigation

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a CAPTCHA challenge page.
  2. No business or contact information is visible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No WHOIS data available for domain, indicating possible non-registration or privacy protection.
  5. Use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise indicates bot mitigation efforts.
  6. Page lacks SEO and accessibility optimizations.
  7. No visible security headers or HTTPS confirmation in provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise scripts loaded asynchronously to present a CAPTCHA challenge. The HTML is minimal and focused solely on bot verification, with inline CSS for styling. No CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. External assets are loaded from Google domains and an Amazon S3 bucket hosting branding images. Performance is likely moderate due to minimal content but user experience is hindered by the CAPTCHA requirement. SEO is poor due to lack of meta tags beyond viewport and robots directives disallowing indexing. Accessibility is basic with no ARIA roles or landmarks beyond minimal semantic HTML. The technical stack is simple but lacks modern best practices for security headers and privacy compliance.
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 checkfelix.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 checkfelix.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.