Skip to main content

Security report for decmacau.pt

Other · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

44/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website decmacau.pt currently serves only a 404 Not Found error page, indicating that the requested content is missing, removed, or temporarily unavailable. There is no accessible business information, contact details, or service descriptions available on the site. The site uses Google Fonts for typography but lacks any other detectable technologies or frameworks. Due to the absence of content, the website's digital maturity is very low, with minimal technical implementation and no SEO or accessibility optimizations. Security posture cannot be properly assessed as no security headers or SSL/TLS information is provided. The lack of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies further indicates poor compliance and trustworthiness. Overall, the site appears inactive or improperly configured, resulting in a very low risk assessment but also very limited business or security insights.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

10 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

  2. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching decmacau.pt

This scan found 28 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
60
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
0
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
  • 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

No business intelligence can be derived from the current website content as it only displays a generic 404 error page. There is no indication of market positioning, business model, target audience, or partnerships. The absence of any company branding, contact information, or service descriptions suggests the site is either under development, abandoned, or misconfigured.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is currently unknown and likely poor due to the lack of HTTPS confirmation, absence of security headers, and no visible security or incident response policies. No forms or input fields are present, reducing immediate attack surface, but the lack of basic security best practices and policies is a concern if the site were to become active.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce HTTPS to secure all communications.
  2. Develop and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information and business details to improve trust and credibility.
  4. Configure proper security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Ensure the website content is properly deployed and accessible to avoid 404 errors and improve user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Google Fonts (Titillium Web)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

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 returns a 404 Not Found error page indicating the requested content is missing or unavailable.
  2. No metadata such as Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data present.
  3. No forms or input fields detected on the page.
  4. No contact information, emails, phone numbers, or social media links found.
  5. Only external resource loaded is Google Fonts for typography.
  6. No security headers or SSL/TLS information available from provided data.
  7. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  8. Website content is minimal and does not provide business or service information.
  9. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  10. No evidence of WAF or security blocking mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently only loads a Google Fonts resource and a simple HTML 404 error page with inline CSS. No CMS, frameworks, or analytics tools are detected. The site lacks metadata, structured data, and SEO optimizations. Mobile responsiveness is basic due to simple CSS. Performance is moderate given minimal content but the user experience is poor due to missing pages. There is no evidence of hosting provider or platform information. Technical debt is high as the site is non-functional for its intended purpose.
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 decmacau.pt. 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 decmacau.pt.

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.