Skip to main content

Security report for exxe.one

Other · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website exxe.one is currently under maintenance mode, displaying only a placeholder message with no substantive business content or services described. The domain is relatively new, registered in 2022, and uses privacy protection via Dynadot Privacy Service. The site is built on WordPress using a common maintenance mode plugin, with minimal technical complexity and no visible security or privacy policies. There are no contact details or social media links provided, limiting business credibility and user trust. Technically, the site lacks DNSSEC and security headers, and no HTTPS status was confirmed from the data provided. Overall, the website is in an early or transitional stage with limited digital maturity and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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 exxe.one

This scan found 25 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
20
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
54

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 content, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be identified. The domain's privacy protection and recent creation suggest a new or small business entity, but no further business intelligence or partnership ecosystem is evident. The lack of contact information and policies limits transparency and trustworthiness, which are critical for customer engagement and regulatory compliance.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal with no DNSSEC enabled and no security headers detected. The use of privacy protection for WHOIS is standard but reduces transparency. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site does not currently expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries, but the lack of HTTPS confirmation and security best practices is a concern. Overall, security maturity is low, and improvements are needed to meet basic security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and verify proper configuration.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to enhance domain name system security.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide clear contact information and business details to enhance credibility and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website is currently under maintenance with a placeholder message indicating temporary downtime. No business description or services are provided.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Minimal Coming Soon & Maintenance Mode plugin, WebFont Loader, Google Fonts (via bunny.net)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently in maintenance mode with minimal content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details provided on the site.
  4. Uses WordPress with a common maintenance mode plugin.
  5. No security headers or DNSSEC enabled.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  7. No external business-related links or social media profiles found.
  8. Domain is privacy protected and registered with Dynadot Inc.
  9. No signs of adult or questionable content.
  10. Website lacks SEO and accessibility optimizations.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with a minimal coming soon and maintenance mode plugin. Fonts are loaded via bunny.net using WebFont Loader. The site is hosted with Dynadot Inc, which is also the registrar. Performance is moderate given the minimal content, but SEO and accessibility are poor due to lack of metadata and structured content. The site is not optimized for mobile beyond basic responsiveness. There is no evidence of analytics or tracking tools. Technical debt is low but modernization opportunities exist, especially in security and compliance.
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 exxe.one. 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 exxe.one.

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.