Skip to main content

Security report for f24.org

One-Check GmbH · Other · Switzerland

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at f24.org currently serves as a placeholder or offline page displaying the Chrome T-Rex runner game, with no visible business-related content or contact information. The domain is registered to One-Check GmbH, a Swiss company established in 2002, indicating a legitimate and longstanding registration. However, the website itself lacks any meaningful content, policies, or security features that would support a professional business presence. From a technical perspective, the site uses basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript to deliver the offline game experience. There is no evidence of modern frameworks, CMS, or analytics tools. The hosting is provided by hostpoint.ch, a known hosting provider. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, and SEO is poor due to lack of metadata and content. Security posture is weak, with no HTTPS enforcement or security headers detected in the provided content. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or incident response information is available. The WHOIS data is consistent and trustworthy, but the website content does not reflect an active or professional business presence. Overall, the website appears to be either inactive, under construction, or repurposed as a placeholder page. This results in a low AI score and poor trust indicators. Strategic recommendations include developing a proper business website with clear content, implementing security best practices, and publishing necessary compliance policies.

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

7 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 f24.org

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. 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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
53

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention f24.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
15
Employees
0
Customers
15
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
60%

1 subdomain affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for f24.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The domain f24.org is registered to One-Check GmbH, a Swiss company founded in 2002. There is no visible business content on the website to analyze market positioning, business model, or services. The lack of contact information and policies suggests the site is not currently used for active business operations. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The domain age supports legitimacy but the website does not reflect operational maturity or market presence.

Security posture

The website lacks HTTPS enforcement and security headers, which are critical for protecting user data and preventing common web attacks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The absence of analytics or tracking scripts reduces privacy concerns but also limits business insights. Overall, the security posture is weak and requires significant improvements to meet modern standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Publish clear contact information including support and incident response channels.
  4. Incorporate security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Develop meaningful business content to improve trust and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
One-Check GmbH
Description
No business description found in the content. The page content is a Chrome offline game page (T-Rex runner).
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and appears to be a Chrome offline game page (T-Rex runner).
  2. No business-related content or contact information is present on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement visible in the content provided.
  5. WHOIS data indicates a legitimate registration with consistent registrant information.
  6. No external links, forms, or social media links found in the HTML content.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  8. Overall website quality and professionalism are poor due to lack of meaningful content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without any detected CMS or frameworks. Hosting is provided by hostpoint.ch. The page is minimalistic, serving a Chrome offline game with no SEO metadata or structured data. Performance is moderate due to simplicity, but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. There is no evidence of modern technical infrastructure or analytics integration. Technical debt is low but modernization is needed to support business goals.
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 f24.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 f24.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.