Skip to main content

Security report for error-report.com

Technology · N/a

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

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

html-load.com is a newly established technology service provider specializing in real-time obfuscation of web resources such as JavaScript, CSS, and HTML to protect against unauthorized access and tampering. The website targets developers and businesses seeking to secure their web assets while maintaining performance. The service is delivered via a developer-friendly API and leverages multi-CDN infrastructure including Cloudflare, AWS, and Google Cloud for reliability and speed. The site is professionally designed with good mobile optimization and clear navigation, though it lacks some compliance documentation such as privacy and cookie policies. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies and integrates Google reCAPTCHA to protect its contact form from spam. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enforced but missing explicit security headers and incident response contacts. The domain is recently registered in November 2023 with a consistent and transparent WHOIS record, indicating a legitimate new business. Overall, the website presents a credible and focused offering in the web security niche but should improve compliance and security best practices to enhance trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

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

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 error-report.com

This scan found 23 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. See sample alerts.

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
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
62

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 company operates in the technology sector, providing a niche service focused on web resource security through code obfuscation. Its business model centers on API-based integration for developers, targeting small to medium businesses or development teams concerned with protecting front-end code. The use of multi-CDN providers suggests an emphasis on performance and reliability. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers and lack of privacy or cookie policies may limit customer trust and regulatory compliance. The company appears to be a startup or early-stage business given the recent domain registration. Partnerships with major cloud providers enhance its technical credibility. Growth potential depends on expanding compliance transparency and building trust signals such as certifications or customer testimonials.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses Google reCAPTCHA to secure its contact form, which are positive security practices. However, it lacks published privacy and cookie policies, security headers like Content-Security-Policy, and incident response contact information, which are important for compliance and security maturity. No vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The domain status flags (clientDeleteProhibited, etc.) protect against unauthorized domain changes. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by adding security headers, formal policies, and incident response details to meet industry best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Implement and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add incident response and abuse contact information prominently on the website.
  4. Include terms of service to clarify user agreements and liabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and conduct an accessibility audit to improve inclusiveness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Protect your web assets with cutting-edge real-time obfuscation. Ensure your JavaScript, CSS, and HTML are secure from unauthorized access, while delivering seamless performance for your users.
Key services
Real-Time Obfuscation, Developer-Friendly API, Performance Optimization, Customizable Security Rules
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google reCAPTCHA v2/v3, Cloudflare DNS and CDN, AWS, Google Cloud
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA on contact form to prevent spam
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited, clientRenewProhibited, clientTransferProhibited, clientUpdateProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website provides a focused service on real-time obfuscation for web resources
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found, which is a compliance gap
  3. Contact is only via a form with reCAPTCHA, no direct emails or phone numbers provided
  4. Uses modern web fonts and multi-CDN infrastructure for performance and reliability
  5. No explicit security headers detected in the provided data
  6. No social media or external business contact links found
  7. Domain is very new but professionally configured
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with modern HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript technologies, using Google Fonts and Google reCAPTCHA for spam protection. It leverages a multi-CDN setup with Cloudflare, AWS, and Google Cloud to optimize performance and availability. The site is mobile responsive with good design quality and user experience. However, no CMS or specific frameworks were detected, indicating a likely custom or static site. The absence of security headers and compliance documentation represents technical debt and potential risk. Performance is fast due to CDN usage and minimal external dependencies. The contact form uses JavaScript to submit JSON data asynchronously, indicating a modern approach to user interaction. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security and compliance features.
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. 62/100Medium32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with error-report.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 error-report.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.