Skip to main content

Security report for emojikeyboardforchrome.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

54/100

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

The website emojikeyboardforchrome.com is currently inaccessible, serving a 502 Bad Gateway error indicating the origin server is unreachable. The domain is recently registered in August 2023 via NameCheap, suggesting a new or small business. The site uses minimal technology, primarily jQuery and assets served via bunny.net CDN. No business content, contact information, or compliance policies are present on the accessible page, limiting the ability to assess the business or security posture comprehensively. The lack of security headers, DNSSEC, and privacy documentation further reduces trust and compliance confidence. Overall, the site appears to be in an early or non-operational state with critical availability issues.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of emojikeyboardforchrome.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  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

    • 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 emojikeyboardforchrome.com

This scan found 19 issues across 5 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
72
Email security
40
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
54

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Due to the absence of accessible business content, no detailed market positioning, business model, or service offerings can be determined. The domain age and registrar information indicate a legitimate registration but no further business intelligence is available. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or related domains were identified. The lack of contact or social media links suggests minimal digital presence or incomplete deployment.

Security posture

The security posture is weak given the unavailability of the origin server causing a 502 error, absence of security headers, and no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or DNSSEC. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The domain status includes clientTransferProhibited, which is a positive trust indicator. Overall, the site is vulnerable to availability issues and lacks basic security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Restore and maintain origin server availability to eliminate 502 errors and ensure site accessibility.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL/TLS certificates and enforce secure connections.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS.
  4. Publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Establish clear contact information and incident response channels to enhance transparency and security readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. 502 Bad Gateway error page indicating origin server is unreachable; content is blocked due to server error. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery
Performance
slow
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
10/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently inaccessible due to 502 Bad Gateway error.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. Minimal technical footprint detected: jQuery library and external assets hosted on bunny.net CDN.
  5. No forms or data collection mechanisms present.
  6. No social media or external business links found.
  7. Domain registration is recent and consistent with a new small business.
  8. No security headers or HTTPS status could be verified from provided data.
  9. Content is limited to an error message with no business content.
  10. Analysis incomplete due to blocked content and server error.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses jQuery loaded from a CDN and assets hosted on bunny.net, indicating reliance on third-party content delivery networks. No CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. The site currently serves only an error page with minimal HTML content and no forms or interactive elements. Performance is likely poor due to server unavailability. Mobile optimization and SEO are minimal given the lack of content and metadata. DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers were detected, indicating technical debt and security gaps.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 59/100Medium24 findings · partial scanView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with emojikeyboardforchrome.com. 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 emojikeyboardforchrome.com.

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.