Skip to main content

Security report for flywheelsites.com

Flywheel · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Flywheel is a managed WordPress hosting provider targeting designers and creative agencies, offering a premium hosting service designed to simplify WordPress site management and scaling. The website analyzed is password protected, indicating restricted access likely for client or internal use. The business positions itself as a specialized hosting company with a focus on security, speed, and ease of use for its target audience. The presence of a valid SSL certificate and password protection demonstrates a baseline security posture, though the lack of advanced security headers and policies suggests room for improvement. Technically, the site uses Varnish caching and is hosted on infrastructure leveraging Amazon AWS DNS services. The website content is professional and consistent with Flywheel's branding, but lacks public-facing privacy, cookie, or terms of service documents, which are important for compliance and trust. Contact information is limited to a support email address. Overall, the digital maturity is moderate with good technical foundations but limited transparency and advanced security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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

6 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 flywheelsites.com

This scan found 22 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
82
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
66

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

Flywheel operates in the technology sector as a managed WordPress hosting provider, focusing on a niche market of designers and creative agencies. Its business model revolves around providing premium hosting solutions that enable clients to build, scale, and manage multiple WordPress sites efficiently. The company leverages partnerships and a strong brand presence to maintain a competitive advantage. Revenue streams likely include hosting subscriptions and value-added services. The website's restricted access suggests a controlled environment for client interactions or staging. The partnership with getflywheel.com is central to its ecosystem. Growth indicators include a focus on ease of use and security, appealing to professional agencies. However, the absence of detailed compliance and security disclosures may impact trust with privacy-conscious customers.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is basic but functional. The use of HTTPS with a valid wildcard SSL certificate issued by a reputable CA (Sectigo) and password protection via Basic Authentication provides fundamental security controls. However, the absence of HTTP security headers such as HSTS, Content-Security-Policy, and others reduces the defense-in-depth. No evidence of published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure programs was found, indicating limited transparency and maturity in security governance. DNS records show a valid SPF record but no DMARC, which could expose the domain to email spoofing risks. The lack of a security.txt file or similar vulnerability disclosure mechanism further limits the security posture. Overall, the site scores moderately on security but should enhance policies, headers, and compliance to reduce risk.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and protect against downgrade attacks.
  2. Replace Basic Authentication with a more secure authentication mechanism such as OAuth or multi-factor authentication.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy policy, cookie policy, and terms of service documents accessible from the website.
  4. Implement DMARC DNS records to improve email security and prevent spoofing.
  5. Add security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to harden the web server against common attacks.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is served behind a Varnish caching server and uses Amazon AWS Route53 for DNS hosting, indicating a robust and scalable infrastructure. The SSL certificate is valid and uses a 2048-bit key, issued by Sectigo, ensuring encrypted communications. The site is password protected using Basic Authentication, which is simple but less secure compared to modern methods. No external JavaScript libraries or analytics scripts were detected, suggesting minimal client-side complexity and tracking. Performance metrics are not available due to password protection, but the infrastructure suggests potential for fast delivery. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design elements. Technical debt appears low, but modernization opportunities include upgrading authentication and adding security headers. The lack of structured data or Open Graph metadata limits SEO and social media integration potential.
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 flywheelsites.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 flywheelsites.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.