Skip to main content

Security report for foodora.cz

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.foodora.cz is currently inaccessible due to a PerimeterX Web Application Firewall (WAF) challenge page requiring CAPTCHA verification. This security measure blocks automated access and prevents retrieval of any meaningful website content, including business information, policies, or contact details. The WHOIS lookup for the domain returned no data, indicating either privacy protection or a domain registration issue, which further limits trust and transparency. The technical infrastructure includes advanced bot mitigation technologies such as PerimeterX and Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, demonstrating a focus on security but also limiting external analysis. Overall, the site’s security posture is strong in terms of bot protection but lacks visible security headers or accessible compliance documentation. The lack of accessible content and WHOIS data results in a low legitimacy and trust score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

8 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.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

  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';…

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

Keep watching foodora.cz

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
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
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

Due to the WAF challenge blocking access, no direct business intelligence data could be extracted. The domain name suggests affiliation with Foodora, a known food delivery service, but no explicit business details, market positioning, or operational insights are available from the current content. No contact information, privacy policies, or certifications were found, limiting assessment of business credibility or compliance. The domain’s lack of WHOIS data and absence of accessible content raise concerns about transparency and legitimacy.

Security posture

The website employs PerimeterX and Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for bot mitigation, indicating a high level of protection against automated threats. However, no security headers or SSL configuration details were observable, and the WHOIS data is missing, which reduces overall trust. The site’s security posture is strong in preventing automated abuse but lacks transparency and visible compliance documentation. Incident response contacts, vulnerability disclosure policies, and data protection officer information are not available, suggesting gaps in security governance and compliance readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Work with domain registrar to ensure WHOIS data is properly published and accurate to improve transparency.
  2. Provide accessible privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to demonstrate compliance and build trust.
  3. Implement and expose standard security headers (e.g., Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options) to enhance security posture.
  4. Offer clear contact information including security incident response channels to improve incident handling and trust.
  5. Balance bot mitigation with user accessibility to allow legitimate users and security analysts to access site content.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a PerimeterX bot mitigation challenge requiring CAPTCHA verification before access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, PerimeterX (PXlJuB4eTB), Roboto Google Fonts

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of PerimeterX bot mitigation
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is fully blocked by PerimeterX WAF challenge.
  2. No business or contact information is accessible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or user input fields detected beyond CAPTCHA.
  5. No visible security headers or SSL configuration details available.
  6. External resources are limited to Google Fonts, Google reCAPTCHA, and PerimeterX scripts.
  7. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating either privacy protection or domain registration issues.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses modern bot mitigation technologies including PerimeterX and Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, and loads Google Fonts for typography. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. The page is minimal and serves only as a security challenge, preventing analysis of performance, SEO, accessibility, or mobile optimization. The lack of visible security headers and absence of WHOIS data indicate technical and operational gaps. The site’s infrastructure prioritizes security but at the cost of accessibility and transparency.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 63/100Medium32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with foodora.cz. 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 foodora.cz.

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.