Skip to main content

Security report for downloadmoredownloads.download

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

elixi.re is a small, open-source technology service providing free file hosting and link shortening functionalities. The platform supports multiple vanity domains and emphasizes privacy by avoiding non-free JavaScript and tracking code. The website is technically modern, using Bootstrap and Cloudflare for hosting and DNS, with a moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and open-source transparency, but lacks some security headers and explicit incident response policies. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a privacy policy and GDPR consent modal, though cookie policies and terms of service are missing. Overall, the site is trustworthy for its niche audience but could improve in security and compliance documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
70/ 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

5 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 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

  3. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching downloadmoredownloads.download

This scan found 18 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
75
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
70
Average
72

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 operates in the technology sector, targeting users needing free and open-source file hosting and link shortening services. Its competitive advantage lies in its open-source nature and multiple vanity domains. The business model appears to be community-driven without monetization via ads or tracking. The lack of contact information and formal business details suggests a small or hobbyist operation. The partnership ecosystem is not evident, and no subsidiaries or parent companies are identified. Growth indicators include active domain registration and ongoing development visible via GitLab. Strategic observations include the need for enhanced compliance and security transparency to build broader trust.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, and no tracking or advertising scripts reduce attack surface. However, the absence of common security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a gap. The exposure of admin panel links in navigation, even if restricted by CSS classes, could be a minor risk. No incident response or security policy pages are present, limiting transparency. GDPR compliance is partially implemented via consent modal and privacy policy. No vulnerabilities or malware indicators were detected. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small open-source service but requires improvements to meet higher standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  2. Add a cookie policy and explicit consent mechanism to improve privacy compliance.
  3. Restrict visibility of admin panel links strictly to authenticated admin users to reduce attack surface.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to increase transparency and preparedness.
  5. Consider adding contact information or support channels to improve business credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
elixi.re is a free and open-source filehost and link shortener!
Key services
file hosting, link shortening
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Bootstrap, Cloudflare
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No non-free javascript or tracking code
  • Open-source frontend code

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
excellent

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a niche open-source file hosting and link shortening service
  2. No contact emails or phone numbers publicly listed
  3. No cookie policy or terms of service found
  4. Admin panel links are visible in navigation but restricted by class
  5. Open-source frontend code available on GitLab
  6. Multiple vanity domains supported
  7. No tracking or advertising scripts detected
  8. No explicit security headers found in HTML content
  9. Privacy policy present and GDPR consent modal implemented
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript stack with Bootstrap for UI and Cloudflare for DNS and hosting, ensuring good performance and mobile responsiveness. The frontend is open-source, enhancing transparency. However, no CMS or backend technology is explicitly detected. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. SEO is basic with proper meta tags and Open Graph data but lacks structured data like JSON-LD. Technical risks include missing security headers and potential exposure of admin-only links. Overall, the technical infrastructure is sound but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security controls.
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 downloadmoredownloads.download. 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 downloadmoredownloads.download.

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.