Skip to main content

Security report for cloudpit.io

CloudPit · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CloudPit is a technology-focused platform providing cloud-related services accessible via a user login portal. The website is minimalistic, primarily serving as an access point for registered users, with no public-facing content such as privacy policies or contact information. The technical infrastructure shows basic use of JavaScript and CSS with versioning, hosted likely by Dogado based on DNS SOA records. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical security deficiency, exposing users to potential data interception risks. The site lacks modern security headers and DNSSEC, further weakening its security posture. Privacy compliance is poor with no visible policies or consent mechanisms. Overall, the site demonstrates a low level of digital maturity and security readiness.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of cloudpit.io. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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

4 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 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching cloudpit.io

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
50
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
67

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention cloudpit.io, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1,318
Employees
0
Customers
1,318
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
6%

8 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for cloudpit.io.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

CloudPit operates in the technology sector, targeting users who require cloud platform access and management. The business model appears to be subscription or account-based, requiring user authentication. The lack of public business information, policies, or certifications suggests a small-scale operation or a service primarily accessed by known customers. The absence of marketing or analytics tools indicates a focus on functionality over customer acquisition via the website. The company branding is consistent but minimal, and no partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the data. The DNS setup is standard but lacks advanced security features like DNSSEC.

Security posture

The security posture of CloudPit is weak due to the lack of HTTPS and valid SSL certificates, exposing user credentials during login to interception risks. The absence of security headers such as HSTS, CSP, and X-Frame-Options increases vulnerability to common web attacks. DNSSEC is disabled, and no DMARC policy is set for email protection. While a CSRF token is implemented in the login form, this alone is insufficient to secure the platform. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available, indicating limited transparency and preparedness. These gaps pose significant risks to user data confidentiality and platform integrity.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site immediately.
  2. Implement essential security headers including HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enable DNSSEC and configure DMARC to enhance DNS and email security.
  4. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance statements and implement a cookie consent mechanism.
  5. Establish and publicize an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS with versioned assets, indicating some level of maintenance. The DNS configuration is standard with multiple authoritative nameservers and a valid SPF record for email. Hosting appears to be with Dogado, inferred from the SOA record. Performance is moderate with a load time of approximately 3.3 seconds and 14 resource requests. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no advanced SEO or structured data present. The lack of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols is a critical technical deficiency. No CMS or frameworks are detected, suggesting a custom or minimal platform. The site lacks analytics or marketing integrations, focusing solely on login functionality.
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. 66/100Medium32 findingsView report
  2. 66/100Medium32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with cloudpit.io. 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 cloudpit.io.

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.