Skip to main content

Security report for eurologport.eu

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.eurologport.eu appears to be a small-scale site built on WordPress using the Divi theme and jQuery library. The content is minimal with no clear business description, contact information, or privacy policies visible. The lack of WHOIS data due to privacy protection limits the ability to verify the domain's legitimacy and ownership. Technically, the site uses standard CMS technology but lacks modern security best practices such as HTTPS and security headers. The security posture is weak with no visible incident response or data protection measures. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile and would benefit from significant improvements in transparency, security, and content quality.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, LinkedIn

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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 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"

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

Keep watching eurologport.eu

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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
65

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

Due to the absence of business-related content, contact details, or structured data, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning or business model of the entity behind the website. The site does not display any certifications, partnerships, or trust signals. The target audience and key services are not described, limiting business intelligence insights. The domain's privacy-protected WHOIS data further obscures business legitimacy.

Security posture

The website lacks HTTPS evidence and security headers, indicating a basic or poor security posture. No vulnerability disclosures, incident response contacts, or security policies are present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. The use of outdated or unverified plugins cannot be ruled out, posing potential risks. Overall, the security maturity is low, exposing the site to potential threats and reducing user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure data transmission.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR.
  3. Add clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for business credibility and incident reporting.
  4. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, jQuery
Frameworks
Divi
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy protection or query failure
  2. Website uses WordPress with Divi theme and jQuery
  3. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or addresses found
  5. No security headers detected in the HTML content
  6. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet
  7. External links limited to Google Tag Manager and theme resources
  8. No social media links or business certifications found
  9. Content is minimal and lacks descriptive business information
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The site is built on WordPress with the Divi theme and uses jQuery, indicating a common CMS-based infrastructure. Performance appears moderate but could be improved with optimization. Mobile responsiveness is basic, and accessibility features are minimal. SEO optimization is limited due to lack of meta descriptions and structured data. The hosting provider and server configuration details are not discernible from the provided data. Technical debt may exist due to lack of updates or security hardening.
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 eurologport.eu. 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 eurologport.eu.

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.