Skip to main content

Security report for choquelegoff.com

Atelier Choque Le Goff · Other · France

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

48/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Atelier Choque Le Goff is an independent graphic design studio based in Paris, founded in 2016. The website serves as a portfolio showcasing a variety of creative projects including book design, poster design, editorial work, identity creation, and typography. The studio targets clients interested in high-quality graphic design and art direction services. The business model is centered on creative service delivery with a focus on visual arts and design. The website content is well-structured and visually appealing, reflecting the studio's professional branding and consistent design language. Technically, the website is built on GravCMS, a flat-file CMS, and uses jQuery 2.x along with custom CSS and JavaScript. The site demonstrates moderate performance and good mobile optimization, though accessibility features are basic. SEO optimization is present but minimal. Hosting appears to be managed via the registrar Nuxit with modns.fr nameservers. No advanced analytics or tracking tools are detected, indicating a privacy-conscious approach. From a security perspective, the site lacks several best practices such as security headers and DNSSEC. The domain uses HTTPS (assumed from URL) but no explicit security headers were detected in the provided data. No privacy or cookie policies are present, which is a compliance gap especially under GDPR. No contact or incident response information is provided, limiting transparency and trust. The WHOIS data is consistent and legitimate, with a domain age appropriate for the business history. Overall, the website is a good representation of a small creative studio with a professional portfolio. However, it lacks important privacy and security features that could improve trust and compliance. Strategic recommendations include adding privacy and cookie policies, implementing security headers, enabling DNSSEC, and providing clear contact information to enhance credibility and security posture.

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

8 findings 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  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 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching choquelegoff.com

This scan found 22 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
55
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
48

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 studio operates in the graphic design sector, focusing on art direction, typography, editorial, and identity design. Its market positioning is that of a boutique, independent design studio serving clients likely in the creative and cultural sectors. The business model is service-based, relying on project commissions. The website content indicates ongoing activity since 2016 with a portfolio of diverse projects. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The absence of contact details and policies suggests a lean operation possibly relying on direct client relationships. Growth indicators are not explicit but the consistent portfolio updates imply active engagement. The lack of marketing or analytics tools suggests a focus on organic reach or direct referrals.

Security posture

The security posture is basic with several gaps. The domain is protected against unauthorized transfer (clientTransferProhibited) but DNSSEC is not enabled, which could expose DNS to spoofing risks. No security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options were detected, increasing risk of clickjacking or content injection. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR requirements. No incident response or abuse contacts are provided, limiting the ability to report security issues. No vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security configurations and compliance documentation to reduce risk and improve trust.

Recommendations

  1. Add a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to secure DNS resolution.
  4. Provide clear contact information including business email and incident response contacts.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate any vulnerable libraries or configurations.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Atelier Choque Le Goff
Description
Atelier Choque Le Goff is an independant graphic design studio
Key services
art direction, graphic design, typography, poster design, book design, editorial design, identity design, website design, typeface design
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.x, HTML5, CSS3
Frameworks
GravCMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a portfolio for an independent graphic design studio based in Paris.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links explicitly provided.
  4. Site uses GravCMS and jQuery 2.x, with custom CSS and JS files.
  5. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  6. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected from provided data.
  7. WHOIS data shows domain is registered with Nuxit since 2016 and expires in 2026.
  8. No signs of WAF or content blocking.
  9. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses GravCMS, a modern flat-file CMS, which simplifies hosting and reduces database risks. The front-end relies on jQuery 2.x, which is somewhat outdated but still functional. CSS and JavaScript are custom and appear well-organized. The site is mobile optimized and uses responsive design. Performance is moderate, likely due to image-heavy portfolio content. SEO is basic with meta tags and Open Graph tags present but no structured JSON-LD data found. No analytics or tracking scripts are included, which may limit marketing insights but improves privacy. Hosting is via Nuxit with modns.fr nameservers, a smaller provider. The site lacks advanced accessibility features and security headers, representing technical debt and modernization opportunities.
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 choquelegoff.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 choquelegoff.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.