Skip to main content

Security report for fawn.moe

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'fawn.moe' is a personal portfolio site for an individual self-taught software developer named fawn. The site showcases personal interests such as movies and music, with links to social media and friends' profiles. It is a small-scale personal site without commercial business operations or formal company structure. Technically, the site is built using modern frameworks Astro and Svelte, indicating a contemporary approach to web development. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Security posture is minimal with no detected security headers or policies, and no HTTPS status was confirmed from the data. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, and no contact information is provided, limiting compliance and trust signals. Overall, the site is safe for general audiences and does not contain adult or explicit content. The domain WHOIS data was not provided, so domain legitimacy and registration details could not be fully assessed.

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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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';…

  3. 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 fawn.moe

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
62
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
63

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

This personal website targets a niche audience interested in the developer's work and personal interests. It does not operate as a commercial business and lacks formal business information or certifications. The site links to social media and friends, indicating a community or personal network focus. There are no indications of revenue streams, partnerships, or market positioning beyond personal branding. The business model is essentially a personal portfolio and blog. Growth indicators and strategic partnerships are not evident from the content.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is low. There are no visible security headers, no privacy or cookie policies, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. The site does not appear to collect user data via forms or analytics, reducing some risk but also limiting user engagement and compliance. The absence of HTTPS confirmation is a concern, though it may be present but not confirmed in the data. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The site would benefit from implementing standard security best practices and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information including a security contact or abuse email.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Personal website of a self-taught software developer named fawn, with interests in movies and music.
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Astro, Svelte
Frameworks
Astro v5.7.5, Svelte
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal portfolio for a software developer named fawn.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers provided.
  4. Uses modern web technologies Astro and Svelte.
  5. No security headers or explicit security policies detected.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  7. External links mainly to social and personal related sites.
  8. No advertising or marketing tools detected.
  9. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  10. No WAF or blocking detected; site fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Astro v5.7.5 and Svelte frameworks, indicating a modern and modular front-end architecture. The site loads CSS and JavaScript modules efficiently and is mobile responsive. However, SEO optimization is basic with minimal meta tags and no structured data like JSON-LD. No CMS or hosting provider information is detected. Performance is moderate with no obvious broken elements. Accessibility is basic and could be improved with ARIA roles and better semantic markup. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, which limits data-driven insights but enhances privacy.
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 fawn.moe. 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 fawn.moe.

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.