Skip to main content

Security report for cronoslabs.org

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.cronoslabs.org is a minimal Wix-built site with very limited content and no visible business or contact information. The lack of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, combined with the absence of WHOIS data, reduces the trustworthiness and credibility of the site. Technically, the site uses standard Wix scripts and polyfills but lacks advanced SEO, accessibility, and security features. No security headers or SSL configuration details were found, indicating potential security weaknesses. Overall, the site appears to be in an early or placeholder state with minimal digital maturity and business presence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

7 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 cronoslabs.org

This scan found 24 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
62
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
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 cronoslabs.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for cronoslabs.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

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

Due to the absence of business descriptions, contact details, or company information, it is not possible to determine the market positioning, business model, or target audience of the entity behind the website. The site does not demonstrate competitive advantages or strategic partnerships. The lack of content and metadata suggests the business is either very small, new, or inactive. No revenue streams or growth indicators are evident from the site content.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak due to missing HTTPS/SSL information, lack of security headers, and no visible security or incident response policies. The use of Sentry indicates some level of error monitoring, but no vulnerability disclosures or data protection officer contacts are present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. Overall, the site is at risk of security and compliance issues if it collects any user data.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Publish contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses to improve business credibility.
  4. Include security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
  5. Develop and publish an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to build trust and readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, Sentry, Core-js, Focus-within-polyfill, FormatJS Intl Segmenter Polyfill
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and polyfills.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, indicating privacy protection or query issues.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found.
  5. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
  6. No business or company information is presented on the website.
  7. Website content is minimal and lacks descriptive or business-related text.
  8. No forms or data collection fields detected in the HTML content.
  9. External resources are mostly Wix and related CDN domains.
  10. No advertising or marketing tools detected except Sentry for error monitoring.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Wix and uses standard Wix platform technologies including JavaScript polyfills and Sentry for error tracking. The site lacks advanced SEO metadata, structured data, and accessibility features. Performance appears moderate but could be improved with optimization. The site is mobile-optimized at a basic level but lacks comprehensive responsive design elements. Technical debt is low due to minimal content but modernization opportunities include adding SEO, accessibility, and security enhancements.
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 cronoslabs.org. 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 cronoslabs.org.

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.