Skip to main content

Security report for ckp.cz

Other · Czech Republic

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website ckp.cz currently presents a CAPTCHA challenge page designed to prevent automated access, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or anti-bot mechanism. The domain is registered since 1999 with a Czech registrar, suggesting an established presence. However, the landing page lacks any visible business information, contact details, privacy or cookie policies, and does not provide any content beyond the CAPTCHA challenge. This limits the ability to assess the business model, services, or market positioning. The technical infrastructure appears minimal and focused on bot mitigation rather than user engagement or content delivery. Security posture is weak due to lack of visible HTTPS enforcement and security headers, and privacy compliance is absent. Overall, the site is inaccessible for detailed analysis due to the blocking mechanism.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

    • 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. 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 ckp.cz

This scan found 18 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
72
Security headers
80
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
75

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 CAPTCHA challenge blocking access, no business intelligence data such as company name, services, or market positioning could be extracted. The domain age and registrar indicate a legitimate Czech domain, but no further business details are available. There are no external links, social media profiles, or contact information to infer partnerships or customer segments. The website appears to be either under maintenance, protected by strict anti-bot measures, or possibly a placeholder.

Security posture

The website employs a CAPTCHA challenge to block automated access, which is a positive security measure against bots and scraping. However, no HTTPS enforcement or security headers were detected in the provided data, which are critical for secure communications and protection against common web attacks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating non-compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. The lack of contact information for incident response or security reporting further weakens the security posture. Overall, the site shows basic bot protection but lacks comprehensive security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  4. Provide accessible contact information including security incident response contacts.
  5. Improve website accessibility and mobile optimization to enhance user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website content is a CAPTCHA challenge page designed to prevent automated access, indicating presence of a WAF or anti-bot mechanism. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

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 a CAPTCHA challenge page blocking automated access.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the landing page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No external links or social media profiles detected.
  5. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond obfuscated JavaScript.
  6. Technical implementation is minimal and focused on bot mitigation.
  7. WHOIS data shows a long-registered domain with a Czech registrar.
  8. Website likely uses a custom or generic WAF/anti-bot solution.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses obfuscated JavaScript likely related to the CAPTCHA challenge and bot detection. No modern frameworks or CMS platforms were detected. The hosting provider is REG-WEBGLOBE, a Czech registrar and hosting provider. Performance is likely slow due to the blocking mechanism and minimal content. The site lacks SEO optimization, meta tags, and accessibility features. There is no evidence of analytics or marketing tools. The technical implementation focuses primarily on preventing automated access rather than delivering content or services.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 75/100Medium25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with ckp.cz. 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 ckp.cz.

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.