Skip to main content

Security report for ees4.dev

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website ees4.dev hosts a personal or community-oriented page titled 'imeesa.com' that primarily serves as a hub for social links and participation in a community webring. The site does not present any commercial business information, products, or services. The content is minimal but functional, focusing on personal contact via email and Discord, and linking to various community and personal sites. The technical infrastructure is simple, relying on static HTML and CSS without detectable CMS or advanced frameworks. The site appears moderately optimized for mobile and basic SEO but lacks advanced technical features or performance optimizations. Security posture is weak due to absence of visible HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and no privacy or cookie policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. Overall, the site is safe for general audiences with no adult or explicit content detected. The domain uses privacy protection for WHOIS data, which aligns with the personal nature of the site. The overall risk is low but the site would benefit from improved security and privacy compliance measures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

8 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 ees4.dev

This scan found 24 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
63

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 site represents a small-scale personal or community presence rather than a commercial entity. There is no clear business model or revenue stream. The target audience is general internet users interested in community webrings and personal connections. The site links to numerous other personal or community sites, indicating a networked ecosystem but no formal partnerships or subsidiaries. The lack of business or legal information limits credibility and trust indicators. Growth and market positioning are not applicable given the non-commercial nature.

Security posture

Security maturity is low with no evidence of HTTPS enforcement, security headers, or formal security policies. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response mechanisms are provided. The site does not collect user data via forms beyond a mailto link and Discord contact, reducing attack surface but also limiting user engagement. Recommendations include enabling HTTPS, adding security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and establishing vulnerability disclosure and incident response contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Enable and enforce HTTPS across the entire site to protect user data and improve trust.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance transparency.
  4. Add vulnerability disclosure and incident response information to improve security posture and user confidence.
  5. Enhance contact information with official business details if applicable to improve credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Personal or individual website with links to social contacts and community webring participation. No clear business description or commercial services offered.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

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

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal or community link hub with no commercial or business focus.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. Contact information limited to email and Discord user link.
  4. No security policies or incident response information present.
  5. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  6. No CMS or advanced frameworks detected; simple static HTML and CSS.
  7. No security headers or HTTPS status available from provided data.
  8. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  9. No WAF or blocking detected; content fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML5 and CSS, without detectable use of CMS or JavaScript frameworks. The site uses meta tags for viewport and Open Graph but lacks JSON-LD structured data. Performance is likely moderate given the simple static content. Mobile optimization is basic but present via viewport meta tag. Accessibility features are minimal. SEO optimization is basic with some Open Graph tags but no structured data or advanced SEO techniques. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not available from the provided data.
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 ees4.dev. 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 ees4.dev.

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.