Skip to main content

Security report for eep.wtf

Other · Germany

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

EEP.WTF is a personal website belonging to an individual named Ember, who identifies as a political activist, musician, and community-oriented person. The site serves as a personal expression platform rather than a commercial business, focusing on themes of justice, liberation, and community engagement. The website content is minimal but meaningful, with a casual and direct tone. The target audience is likely individuals interested in activism and personal narratives. Technically, the website is simple, built with basic HTML and CSS, hosted via a registrar in Germany with DNS hosted on alldomains.hosting. There is no evidence of a CMS or advanced frameworks. The site includes an embedded ad iframe from metamuffin.org, indicating some monetization. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, and SEO features are minimal. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected. From a security perspective, the site lacks published privacy or cookie policies, security policies, or incident response information. DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers were detected in the provided data. The domain is recently registered, consistent with a new personal site, and no suspicious WHOIS patterns were found. The security posture is basic with room for improvement, especially in compliance and security best practices. Overall, the website is low risk but lacks professional security and privacy features. It is suitable for personal use but would benefit from adding privacy and cookie policies, enabling DNSSEC, and improving security headers to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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 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

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

Keep watching eep.wtf

This scan found 21 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
95
Security headers
20
Email security
73
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
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 eep.wtf, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for eep.wtf 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

EEP.WTF operates as a personal and political expression platform without commercial business operations. Its market position is niche, targeting politically engaged individuals and communities interested in activism and social justice. The business model is non-commercial, focusing on personal expression and community connection. Revenue streams appear limited to ad placements via metamuffin.org. The site has a small footprint with no evident partnerships or subsidiaries. Growth indicators are minimal given the personal nature. The partnership ecosystem includes linked sites such as tea.cuddleslut.fr and lizzy.rs, which may be personal or community-related rather than commercial partners.

Security posture

The security maturity of EEP.WTF is low to moderate. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or security policy information is published, limiting transparency. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a missed opportunity to secure DNS integrity. No security headers were detected, reducing protection against common web attacks. The site uses HTTPS (assumed but not confirmed), which is mandatory. No forms or user input fields reduce attack surface but also limit interactivity. Overall, the site is low risk but would benefit from adopting basic security best practices and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to improve domain name system security and prevent DNS spoofing.
  2. Publish a clear privacy policy and cookie policy to comply with GDPR and inform visitors about data practices.
  3. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Confirm and enforce HTTPS across the entire site to ensure secure communications.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Personal website of Ember, a political activist, musician, and human focused on justice, community, and liberation. The site is a personal space rather than a commercial business.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
metamuffin.org
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal activist and artistic expression site with minimal commercial intent.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. No security policies or incident response information published.
  4. Site uses an ad iframe from metamuffin.org indicating some monetization via ads.
  5. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  6. No social media links except federated and Matrix IDs in contact section.
  7. No HTTPS or security headers information provided; assumed present but unconfirmed.
  8. WHOIS data shows recent registration with no DNSSEC and multiple name servers from a hosting provider.
  9. Content is minimal but meaningful for its purpose; contains strong language but no adult content.
  10. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML and CSS without detectable frameworks or CMS. Hosting is provided by a registrar in Germany with DNS hosted on alldomains.hosting. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility. No advanced SEO or analytics tools are detected. The site includes an embedded ad iframe from metamuffin.org for monetization. There is no evidence of technical debt but also no advanced technical features or modernization. The site is simple and functional but could benefit from improved technical SEO, accessibility, and security configurations.
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 eep.wtf. 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 eep.wtf.

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.