Skip to main content

Security report for dgeek.club

Other · Iceland

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 'Daugavpils Geek' appears to be a small-scale or startup technology-related site with minimal content and limited business information. The domain is relatively new, registered in 2022, and uses privacy protection services, which is common for small businesses but reduces transparency. The technical infrastructure is modern, utilizing Vue.js and Vuetify frameworks, indicating a contemporary frontend approach. However, the site lacks substantive content, contact information, and compliance policies such as privacy or cookie policies. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but no advanced security headers or incident response information. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile due to minimal content and lack of transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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 dgeek.club

This scan found 25 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. See sample alerts.

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
85
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The business behind the website is not clearly identified, with no company name, description, or contact details provided. The domain is registered via NameCheap with privacy protection, and the site targets a general technology audience. There is no evidence of partnerships, certifications, or market positioning. The business model and revenue streams are not discernible from the site content. The lack of contact information and policies suggests an early-stage or hobbyist project rather than an established commercial entity.

Security posture

Security measures are minimal but adequate for a small site. HTTPS is enabled, but no DNSSEC or security headers are present. There are no visible forms or data collection points, reducing attack surface. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps, especially regarding GDPR. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site would benefit from implementing security headers, formal policies, and contact channels for security incidents to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for business and security incident reporting.
  3. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate any vulnerable libraries or potential security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, Vuetify, Vue.js
Frameworks
Vuetify, Vue.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website lacks privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies.
  2. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found.
  3. No security or incident response policies detected.
  4. Website uses modern frontend technologies (Vue.js, Vuetify) but content is minimal.
  5. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  6. WHOIS data shows privacy protection and domain registered with NameCheap.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data.
  8. No forms or data collection mechanisms identified in the truncated HTML.
  9. Website content is minimal and mostly technical styling with no substantive business information.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses modern frontend technologies including Vue.js and Vuetify, indicating a contemporary design framework. The HTML and CSS appear valid and the site is mobile optimized with a dark theme. Hosting is provided by NameCheap. Performance is moderate given the minimal content. SEO and accessibility features are basic, with no advanced metadata or structured data detected. There is no CMS detected, suggesting a custom or static site. The lack of analytics or tracking scripts indicates minimal data collection. Overall, the technical implementation is sound but basic, with opportunities for enhancement in SEO, accessibility, and security.
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 dgeek.club. 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 dgeek.club.

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.