Skip to main content

Security report for enric.dev

Enric · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website enric.dev is a personal professional portfolio for Enric, a software engineer with extensive experience in frontend and backend development at notable technology companies such as Vercel, Typeform, and Coolblue. The site serves as a digital resume and professional showcase targeting technology professionals, recruiters, and potential employers. It highlights Enric's career history, technical skills, and professional achievements. Technically, the website is built using modern web technologies including React and Next.js, hosted on Vercel, ensuring fast performance and good mobile optimization. The site uses Google Fonts and includes minimal tracking via Vercel Analytics. However, it lacks some security best practices such as security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and does not expose sensitive data or collect user input via forms, which reduces risk. However, the absence of privacy policies, cookie consent mechanisms, and security headers indicates room for improvement in compliance and security posture. No vulnerabilities or suspicious elements were detected. Overall, the website is professional, safe, and trustworthy as a personal portfolio but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance and security hardening to align with best practices and regulatory requirements.

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. 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

  2. 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';…

  3. 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 enric.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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
60
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

Enric operates as an individual professional in the technology sector, focusing on software engineering with a specialization in frontend and backend development. The business model is personal branding and career promotion through an online portfolio. The website positions Enric as a skilled engineer with experience at reputable companies, targeting recruiters and technology employers. There is no indication of commercial transactions or product sales. The site links to major technology companies and educational institutions, reflecting a strong professional network. Growth indicators include recent employment at Vercel and a history of technical leadership roles. The partnership ecosystem is limited to professional affiliations rather than business partnerships.

Security posture

The security maturity level of the website is moderate. HTTPS is properly implemented, ensuring encrypted communications. The site does not collect user data via forms, reducing attack surface. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options weakens defense against common web attacks. No incident response or security policy information is provided, limiting transparency. Privacy compliance is minimal with no GDPR-related disclosures or cookie consent. The site does not provide vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a personal portfolio but should be enhanced to meet professional standards and regulatory expectations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information including an email address for general and security-related inquiries.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with WCAG standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Enric
Description
Personal professional portfolio website of Enric, showcasing his experience as a software engineer with a focus on frontend and backend development in technology companies.
Key services
Software engineering, Frontend development, Backend development, Technical leadership
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, JavaScript, CSS, Google Fonts
Frameworks
Next.js, React
Platforms
Vercel
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data
  • No forms collecting user data

Analytics and tracking

Services
Vercel Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal portfolio for a software engineer named Enric.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  4. Social media links to Twitter, GitHub, and LinkedIn are present.
  5. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  6. Uses modern web technologies and hosted on Vercel.
  7. No security headers detected in the HTML content.
  8. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected.
  9. Minimal tracking via Vercel analytics script.
  10. Content is professional and safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern React and Next.js framework, leveraging server-side rendering and static site generation for performance. Hosting on Vercel provides a reliable and scalable infrastructure with fast global delivery. The use of Google Fonts and deferred JavaScript loading optimizes page load times. The site is mobile responsive with good design quality and user experience. However, there is no detected CMS or backend content management system, indicating a static or developer-maintained site. The absence of security headers and privacy mechanisms represents technical debt and compliance gaps. Overall, the technical implementation is solid but can be improved with security and privacy 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.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with enric.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 enric.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.