Skip to main content

Security report for filesmonster.com

FilesMonster · Technology · N/a

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

FilesMonster is a digital content distribution platform established in 2007, offering legal file hosting and sharing services primarily targeting content owners, webmasters, and end users seeking digital downloads. The platform provides key services including file hosting, API access, and premium access options, positioning itself as a legal and safe content distribution intermediary. The website is professionally designed with good navigation, mobile optimization, and clear business messaging, supporting a moderate level of trustworthiness. Technically, the site uses a modern technology stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, Font Awesome, and Sentry for error tracking. The platform appears custom-built without a known CMS and is hosted on infrastructure linked to the registrar PDR Ltd. The website performance is moderate with good SEO and basic accessibility features. Analytics are implemented via Google Analytics with moderate user tracking. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and uses secure login forms but lacks DNSSEC and explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. No security or incident response policies are published, and no direct company contact emails or phone numbers are provided, which limits transparency. The WHOIS data is consistent with the business claims, showing a long domain age and no privacy protection, supporting legitimacy. Overall, FilesMonster demonstrates a solid business and technical foundation with room for improvement in security best practices and transparency. Strategic enhancements in security headers, DNSSEC implementation, and publishing security policies would strengthen its security posture and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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"

    • 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 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 filesmonster.com

This scan found 20 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
0
GDPR outside view
53
Average
51
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

FilesMonster operates in the technology sector as a digital content distribution service with a business model connecting content owners, webmasters, and users. The company leverages a platform approach with API integration and premium services to monetize its offerings. Market positioning is stable given the domain age and service longevity since 2007. The absence of direct contact details and limited public business information suggests a focus on platform functionality over brand marketing. The partnership ecosystem is not explicitly disclosed, and no subsidiaries or parent companies are identified. Growth indicators are not visible from the website content. The company targets a global audience with multilingual support but does not specify a country of operation.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, and secure login forms are used, but the absence of DNSSEC and security headers reduces protection against DNS spoofing and clickjacking attacks. No vulnerabilities such as exposed credentials or malware were detected in the content. The lack of published security policies and incident response plans indicates limited transparency and preparedness. Cookie consent is implemented, but GDPR compliance is not explicitly demonstrated. The use of Sentry for error tracking is a positive security practice. Overall, the security posture is adequate but could be significantly improved with standard security headers, DNSSEC, and published policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance browser security.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response plan to improve transparency and preparedness.
  4. Provide verified company contact emails and phone numbers to enhance trust and compliance.
  5. Enhance GDPR compliance by explicitly stating data retention policies and user rights in the privacy policy.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
FilesMonster
Description
Digital content distribution platform providing legal file hosting and sharing services.
Key services
File hosting, Digital content distribution, API access for integration, Premium access services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 3.3.1, Bootstrap, Font Awesome, Select2, Sentry
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Secure login form with POST method
  • Cookie consent mechanism

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (gtag.js)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website provides legal digital content distribution services.
  2. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found; contact via forms only.
  3. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  4. Cookie consent mechanism implemented with cookie storage.
  5. No DNSSEC enabled, which is a security improvement opportunity.
  6. Use of modern JavaScript libraries and frameworks.
  7. No social media links or company physical addresses found.
  8. WHOIS data consistent with domain age and business claims.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and widely adopted technology stack including jQuery 3.3.1, Bootstrap for responsive design, Font Awesome for icons, and Select2 for enhanced select elements. Sentry is integrated for error monitoring. The site is custom-built without a known CMS, indicating tailored development. Performance is moderate with no major errors or broken elements detected. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design and viewport meta tags. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured navigation. However, accessibility features are basic and could be improved. Hosting details are limited but the domain registrar is reputable. No content management or cloud hosting platforms were identified.
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 filesmonster.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 filesmonster.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.