Skip to main content

Security report for cofreco.com

Cofreco · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.cofreco.com presents a minimal landing page in French indicating the closure of the business related to designing house gates. The domain appears unregistered or expired as per WHOIS raw data, and no registrant or contact information is available. The site lacks any metadata, structured data, or security and privacy policies, reflecting a very low digital maturity and business presence. Technically, the site is minimal with no scripts or external resources, and no security headers or HTTPS information is available. The security posture is weak due to lack of HTTPS and security best practices. Overall, the site is accessible but provides almost no useful content or trust signals, resulting in a very low legitimacy and trust score.

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 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

    • 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 cofreco.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
95
Security headers
25
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
56

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 cofreco.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
1
Employees
0
Customers
0
Third parties
1
Weak passwords
0%

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 cofreco.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Cofreco appears to have been a small business focused on designing residential gates, targeting homeowners. The website message suggests the business is closed, which aligns with the lack of domain registration data and absence of contact or policy information. There is no evidence of partnerships, certifications, or a broader ecosystem. The business model was likely direct sales or design services for residential clients. The lack of digital presence and minimal content indicates no active marketing or customer engagement.

Security posture

The security posture is poor with no HTTPS detected or security headers present. No privacy or cookie policies are provided, and no incident response or security contact information is available. The absence of WHOIS data raises concerns about domain legitimacy. No vulnerabilities are explicitly detected, but the lack of basic security measures and policies is a significant gap. The site does not collect user data or have forms, reducing attack surface but also indicating no active customer interaction.

Recommendations

  1. Register or renew the domain to establish legitimacy if business is active.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure the website.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information and business credentials to improve credibility.
  5. Enhance website content with business details, services, and navigation to improve user experience and SEO.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Cofreco
Description
Cofreco appears to be a company involved in designing house gates (portails). The website message indicates the company is closing or has closed operations.
Key services
Design of house gates
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 minimal and only displays a closure message in French.
  2. No metadata such as Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data present.
  3. No forms, no contact information, no social media links detected.
  4. No external links or domains referenced.
  5. No scripts or libraries detected in the HTML content.
  6. No security headers or HTTPS information available from provided data.
  7. WHOIS data shows no registration for the domain, indicating domain is likely expired or unregistered.
  8. Website does not provide privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies.
  9. No evidence of business certifications, security policies, or incident response contacts.
  10. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms but content is extremely limited.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is a static minimal HTML page with no external scripts, libraries, or CMS detected. No meta tags beyond charset and viewport are present, and no SEO or accessibility features are implemented. The site is mobile responsive at a basic level due to viewport meta tag and simple layout. Hosting provider and platform details are not discernible from the content. Performance is likely fast due to minimal content but overall technical implementation is very basic and outdated.
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 cofreco.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 cofreco.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.