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 at ckp.cz is currently inaccessible beyond a security challenge or CAPTCHA page, which prevents access to actual business content. The domain is long-established, created in 1999, and registered via REG-WEBGLOBE, indicating a mature domain age. However, the lack of registrant details and the presence of a WAF challenge page limit the ability to assess the business or security posture accurately. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact information is provided on the page. The technical infrastructure appears minimal, with only obfuscated JavaScript related to anti-bot measures detected. Overall, the website quality and professionalism are poor due to blocked content and lack of transparency.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of ckp.cz. View the latest report

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 17 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
77
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 content being blocked by a security challenge, no business description, services, or market positioning can be determined. The domain age suggests a longstanding presence, but no business or contact details are available to confirm the nature of the entity behind the website. No social media or partner domains are linked. The lack of visible business information and policies reduces credibility and trust.

Security posture

The website employs a security challenge or WAF mechanism that blocks automated access, which is a positive security control to prevent abuse. However, no HTTPS enforcement or security headers are visible, and no privacy or cookie policies are published. The obfuscated JavaScript indicates anti-bot measures but also complicates transparency. The absence of contact or incident response information and vulnerability disclosure policies indicates a low security maturity level. Overall, the security posture is weak beyond the WAF challenge.

Recommendations

  1. Remove or configure the WAF/security challenge to allow legitimate users and security analysts access to the website content.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Provide clear contact information including business address, phone, and email for transparency and trust.
  5. Add security headers and conduct a security audit to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The page content is a security challenge or CAPTCHA page likely from a WAF or anti-bot system, blocking normal access to the website content. 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
10/100

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 inaccessible due to a security challenge or CAPTCHA page.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details are provided on the page.
  4. The page contains obfuscated JavaScript likely related to anti-bot measures.
  5. No external links or social media profiles are present except a single name server domain.
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond the anti-bot script.
  7. The WHOIS data shows a long-registered domain but minimal registrant info.
  8. Overall website quality and professionalism are poor due to blocked content and lack of information.
Technical notes

Notes

The website's technical implementation is minimal and primarily consists of obfuscated JavaScript related to anti-bot or WAF challenge mechanisms. No modern frameworks, CMS, or analytics tools are detected. The page lacks meta tags, SEO optimization, and accessibility features. Performance is likely slow due to the challenge page and lack of optimization. Hosting is via REG-WEBGLOBE, but no further infrastructure details are available. The site requires modernization and improved technical implementation to support business goals and security.
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. 75/100Medium27 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.