Security report for eculturadavivere.it

Afterpixel S.r.l. · Other · Italy

High risk. 17 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website eculturadavivere.it represents a cultural festival promoted by Abi and developed by Afterpixel S.r.l., launched in 2023. It targets a general audience interested in cultural events and festivals in Italy. The site provides event promotion and cultural engagement services, positioning itself as a niche player in the cultural festival market. The business model revolves around event organization and promotion, with a focus on cultural enrichment. The website content is well-structured, professionally designed, and consistent with the brand identity. Technically, the site employs modern tracking and analytics technologies including Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, Twitter Pixel, and LinkedIn Insight Tag, alongside a robust cookie consent mechanism via Cookiebot. The site is mobile-optimized with good SEO practices and moderate performance. However, no CMS or hosting provider details were explicitly detected. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration but lacks DNSSEC and advanced security headers. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found. Privacy compliance is strong with a comprehensive cookie policy and GDPR consent mechanisms. However, the absence of explicit contact information, terms of service, and security policies represents an area for improvement. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with good business credibility and privacy compliance. Strategic recommendations include enhancing DNS security, publishing security and incident response policies, and improving transparency around contact information to further strengthen trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view: 83/ 100 · Low
Checks completed: 7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
(b) Incident handling: One indicator
(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
(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

17 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

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: Telnet
  Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: SMB
  Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL
  Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Oracle
  Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- 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
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: RDP
  Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
  Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Redis
  Port 6379 (Redis) is publicly accessible - Redis - In-memory database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Redis using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB
  Port 27017 (MongoDB) is publicly accessible - MongoDB - NoSQL database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MongoDB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP
  Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
  What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC
  Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint
  What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS
  Port 139 (NetBIOS) is publicly accessible - NetBIOS - Windows file sharing
  What to do: Consider restricting access to NetBIOS or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch
  Port 9200 (Elasticsearch) is publicly accessible - Elasticsearch - Search engine
  What to do: Consider restricting access to Elasticsearch or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
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"
  References
  - CWE-319
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V3.4.1
  - RFC 6797 §6.1.1
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: hsts_min_age 63072000
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
- High
  Missing X-Frame-Options header
  Prevents clickjacking attacks
  What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
  References
  - CWE-1021
  - OWASP A06:2025
  - CAPEC-103
  - ASVS V3.4.6
  - OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
  - RFC 7034
- 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
  References
  - 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';…
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
  References
  - CWE-326
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-13: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-13: Cryptographic Protection

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

Keep watching eculturadavivere.it

This scan found 37 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: 65
Security headers: 15
Email security: 70
DNS health: 60
Network security: 0
GDPR outside view: 83
Average: 49

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

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 eculturadavivere.it, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

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

Monitor on Breach

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The festival is positioned as a cultural event promoted by a banking association (Abi), indicating a unique partnership ecosystem. The business leverages digital marketing and analytics extensively to reach its audience. Revenue streams likely include sponsorships, event ticketing, and promotional partnerships. The target customer segment is culturally engaged individuals in Italy. Growth indicators include recent domain registration and active marketing pixels. The partnership with Abi and use of Afterpixel S.r.l. for development suggests a collaborative operational model. The absence of direct contact details may limit direct customer engagement but the site compensates with strong digital presence and tracking.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and no visible sensitive data exposure. The use of Cookiebot ensures GDPR-compliant consent management. However, the lack of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which could hinder rapid response to security incidents. The presence of multiple third-party tracking pixels increases the attack surface but is common in marketing-focused sites. Overall, the site is secure but could benefit from enhanced security policies and technical controls.

Recommendations

Enable DNSSEC to improve DNS security and prevent spoofing.
Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Provide explicit company contact information to improve transparency and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses

Legal name

Afterpixel S.r.l.

Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company: Afterpixel S.r.l.
Description: Festival promoted by Abi focused on culture
Key services: Festival promotion, Cultural event organization
Content quality: good
Branding: consistent

Technology

Stack: Google Analytics, Meta Pixel (Facebook Pixel), Twitter Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Cookiebot Consent Management
Performance: moderate
Mobile: good
Accessibility: basic
SEO: good

Security

Observed score

80/100

Good practices seen

HTTPS enabled
Cookie consent mechanism implemented
No exposed sensitive data detected

Analytics and tracking

Services: Google Analytics
Tracking level: extensive
Privacy practices: good

Advertising

Ad networks: Meta Platforms, Inc., Google, Twitter Inc.
Tracking pixels: Facebook Pixel, Twitter Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools: Cookiebot Consent Management
Transparency: good

Site quality

Design: good
User experience: good
Content relevance: good
Navigation: good
Professionalism: good
Trustworthiness: high

Key observations

Website is a cultural festival site promoted by Abi and developed by Afterpixel S.r.l.
Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism implemented with Cookiebot
Use of multiple marketing and analytics pixels indicates active user tracking
No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on the main page
No terms of service or security policy pages detected
Domain is relatively new but matches the business purpose
No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected

Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with multiple analytics and marketing pixels integrated via asynchronous JavaScript. Cookiebot is used for consent management, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. The site is mobile responsive with custom CSS and uses canonical and Open Graph meta tags for SEO and social media optimization. No CMS or hosting provider was explicitly detected. Performance is moderate with some loading indicators present. Accessibility is basic but could be improved with more ARIA roles and semantic HTML. The site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate but lacks advanced security headers. Overall, the technical implementation supports the business goals but has room for security and accessibility 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.

OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Priority findings

Network security

Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

Critical Service Exposed: SMB

Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

Critical Service Exposed: RDP

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Redis

Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS

High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch

Security headers

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

Missing X-Frame-Options header

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

SSL/TLS

Weak SSL Key Length