Skip to main content

Security report for filapanel.com

WebBuilds B.V. · Technology · Netherlands

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Filapanel is a specialized SaaS platform designed to accelerate Laravel and Filament project development by automating code generation and admin panel creation. The company, WebBuilds B.V., operates primarily in the technology sector with a focus on developer tools and SaaS solutions. The website presents a professional and well-branded interface targeting Laravel developers and SaaS builders, supported by partner endorsements and testimonials. Technically, the platform leverages modern frontend technologies such as Alpine.js and Tailwind CSS, and is hosted behind Cloudflare DNS services. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate critically undermines the security posture, despite the presence of strong HSTS policies and DMARC email protections. Privacy compliance is partial, with terms of service present but no explicit cookie policy or consent mechanism. Overall, the site demonstrates good business credibility and content quality but requires urgent security improvements to ensure trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

4 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.

    • 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Twitter, YouTube

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

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

Keep watching filapanel.com

This scan found 11 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
90
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
75

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 filapanel.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
17
Employees
0
Customers
17
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
12%

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 filapanel.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

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

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Filapanel occupies a niche market within the Laravel ecosystem, offering automated project scaffolding and admin panel generation that reduces development time and complexity. Its business model is subscription-based SaaS with user registration and tiered pricing. The company maintains strategic partnerships with hosting providers like Ploi and other SaaS platforms, enhancing its ecosystem and referral network. The target audience includes Laravel developers, startups, and SaaS companies seeking rapid deployment solutions. Growth indicators include a user base of thousands and active partner endorsements. The company is small-sized, based in the Netherlands, and emphasizes developer productivity and ease of use as competitive advantages.

Security posture

The website's security maturity is moderate but compromised by the lack of a valid SSL certificate, resulting in no HTTPS support. While DNS and email security measures such as DMARC with reject policy and Cloudflare DNS are in place, the absence of TLS protocols and certificate transparency compliance are significant vulnerabilities. The site employs HSTS with preload, which is a strong security practice but ineffective without HTTPS. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no contact channels for security issues are provided. The use of Matomo analytics with Do Not Track and cookie disabling indicates some privacy awareness. Overall, the security posture requires immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues and enhanced transparency around security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure all user interactions.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and configure strong cipher suites to improve encryption strength.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to enhance SSL performance and security.
  4. Publish a dedicated privacy policy and cookie policy with clear consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  5. Add explicit security policy and incident response information including contact channels for vulnerability reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern frontend technologies including Alpine.js for interactivity and Tailwind CSS for styling, indicating a contemporary development approach. The backend is implied to be Laravel with Filament integration, consistent with the product offering. Hosting is managed via Cloudflare DNS, providing DNS resilience and some security benefits. Performance is suboptimal with a high load time (~15.8 seconds) and large page size (~950 KB), suggesting optimization opportunities. SEO is well addressed with comprehensive meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility and mobile responsiveness are good, supported by semantic HTML and responsive design. Technical debt is minimal but the lack of SSL is a critical risk. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but requires security and performance enhancements.
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 filapanel.com. 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 filapanel.com.

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.