Skip to main content

Security report for construction-eg.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

44/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website construction-eg.com currently serves as a simple directory index page with a single downloadable zip file and lacks any meaningful business content or branding. The domain is registered since 2010 via NameCheap, indicating a potentially long-standing registration, but the website itself does not reflect an active or professional business presence. There are no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, nor any contact information or social media links, which limits user trust and compliance with data protection regulations. From a technical perspective, the site is hosted on a LiteSpeed Web Server with DNS servers under vfecloud.com and vfecloud.net domains. The website lacks modern CMS or frameworks, has no SEO or accessibility optimizations, and exposes directory listing which can lead to information disclosure risks. No security headers are present, and DNSSEC is not enabled, indicating a basic security posture. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS but lacks additional security best practices such as security headers and policies. The exposure of directory listing is a vulnerability that should be addressed promptly. There is no evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is weak and the site is not GDPR compliant. The overall risk assessment suggests that while the domain registration is legitimate, the website content and security practices are poor, which could negatively impact business credibility and user trust. Strategic improvements in website content, security hardening, and compliance policies are recommended to enhance the site's professionalism and security.

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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 construction-eg.com

This scan found 29 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
15
Email security
75
DNS health
50
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
50
Average
44

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 · found on this site
  • 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 domain construction-eg.com appears to be related to the construction sector based on the domain name, but no explicit business information or description is provided on the website. The lack of content and contact details suggests the site may be inactive, under development, or used as a file repository. There are no visible partnerships, certifications, or market positioning indicators. The business model and revenue streams cannot be determined from the available data. The domain age suggests a potentially established entity, but the website does not reflect this. No growth indicators or strategic partnerships are evident.

Security posture

The website's security maturity is low. HTTPS is enabled, which is a positive baseline. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces protection against common web attacks. Directory listing is enabled, exposing internal files which is a security risk. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, indicating limited readiness for security incidents. The site lacks privacy and cookie policies, which is a compliance gap under GDPR and other regulations. Overall, the security culture appears minimal and reactive rather than proactive.

Recommendations

  1. Disable directory listing to prevent exposure of internal files and reduce attack surface.
  2. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information and business details to enhance credibility and transparency.
  5. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to improve DNS security and integrity.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
No business description available. The website content is a directory index listing a single file named 'contructioneg.zip'.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
LiteSpeed Web Server
Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100

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 is a simple directory index with one downloadable zip file.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details provided on the site.
  4. No security headers detected and directory listing is enabled, exposing files.
  5. No analytics or marketing technologies detected.
  6. Domain is registered with a reputable registrar and is not privacy protected.
  7. No WAF or security blocking detected.
  8. Website lacks professional design, content, and compliance features.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on LiteSpeed Web Server and uses DNS servers under vfecloud.com and vfecloud.net. The site is a simple directory index with minimal HTML content and no CMS or modern frameworks detected. There are no analytics or marketing tools in use. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are poor due to lack of responsive design and semantic markup. SEO optimization is minimal with no meta tags or structured data. The technical debt is high due to lack of modern web practices and security configurations. Modernization opportunities include implementing a CMS, improving content structure, and adding security and compliance features.
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 construction-eg.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 construction-eg.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.