Skip to main content

Security report for esmo.org

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website www.esmo.org is currently inaccessible in full due to apparent WAF or security challenge mechanisms, as indicated by the malformed WHOIS response and truncated HTML content. This limits the ability to analyze the website's business, technical, and security posture comprehensively. The WHOIS data is incomplete, lacking registrar, creation, and expiry dates, which reduces confidence in domain legitimacy verification. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies were detected in the accessible content, nor were contact details or security policies found. The content safety assessment indicates the site is safe with no adult or explicit content detected. Overall, the site appears to be professionally oriented but cannot be fully assessed due to access restrictions.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching esmo.org

This scan found 11 issues across 4 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
82
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
100
Average
86
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: 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 limited accessible content, business intelligence insights are minimal. The domain appears to represent an organization likely in the healthcare or medical sector (inferred from the domain name 'esmo' which may relate to oncology or medical societies), but no explicit business descriptions, market positioning, or service details were extractable. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified. The lack of visible contact information or certifications further limits business credibility assessment.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully evaluated due to content access restrictions. No security headers or SSL configuration details were available. The absence of visible security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosures suggests limited transparency. The malformed WHOIS data and lack of registrant information are potential concerns but may be due to privacy protection or query limitations. Overall, the security score is low due to insufficient data.

Recommendations

  1. Improve WHOIS data availability and ensure registrar and registrant information is publicly accessible to enhance trust.
  2. Ensure privacy policy, cookie policy, and terms of service are clearly published and accessible on the website.
  3. Implement and publish security policies and incident response contacts to improve security transparency.
  4. Review WAF or security challenge configurations to allow legitimate analysis and indexing of website content.
  5. Enhance website content accessibility and completeness to improve technical and business credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. WHOIS query returned 'Malformed request.' and the HTML content is truncated and incomplete, indicating possible WAF or security challenge blocking full content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Technology

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is incomplete and malformed
  2. Website content is truncated and incomplete
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected in the provided content
  4. No contact information or security policies found
  5. No visible analytics or advertising scripts detected in the truncated content
  6. Content safety is rated safe with no adult content detected
  7. WAF or security mechanisms likely blocking full content access
Technical notes

Notes

The technical infrastructure assessment is limited due to truncated HTML content and lack of full page access. No conclusive information on CMS, hosting provider, or technology stack was found. The presence of multiple script sources from external domains (e.g., googletagmanager.com, clarity.ms, mapbox.com) suggests use of analytics and mapping services, but no detailed performance or accessibility data could be extracted. The site likely uses modern JavaScript frameworks and video player libraries, but this cannot be confirmed fully. Technical risks include potential over-reliance on third-party scripts and possible WAF misconfiguration blocking content.
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. 83/100Low23 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with esmo.org. 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 esmo.org.

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.