Skip to main content

Security report for forward-architects.com

FORWARD ARCHITECTS · Real Estate · N/a

High risk. 12 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

28/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Forward Architects is a small architectural firm showcasing their portfolio of residential, public, and workspace projects. The website is built on WordPress and uses common analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Facebook Pixel for user tracking. The site is accessible, well-structured, and visually consistent with a good user experience and navigation clarity. However, it lacks critical privacy and cookie policies, and no contact information is explicitly provided in the analyzed HTML content. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but missing security headers and vulnerability disclosures. Overall, the site is functional and professional but could improve compliance and security transparency.

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

12 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

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL 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

  4. 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

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

Keep watching forward-architects.com

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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
10
Average
28

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

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 forward-architects.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for forward-architects.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

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

The company operates in the real estate sector focusing on architectural design services. The website targets potential clients and industry professionals, positioning itself as a niche firm with modern design offerings. The business model is service-oriented with a portfolio showcase approach. There is no evidence of parent or subsidiary companies. The firm uses standard digital marketing and analytics tools but lacks advanced privacy compliance features. Growth potential could be enhanced by adding trust signals and clearer contact channels.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS and standard analytics scripts but lacks security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options. No forms or input fields were detected, reducing attack surface, but absence of security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policies indicates limited incident response readiness. Tracking is implemented without visible consent mechanisms, which may pose GDPR compliance risks. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified. Security posture is moderate but could be improved with better headers, policies, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers on the website to improve business credibility and user trust.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file to demonstrate incident response readiness.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and SEO optimization to improve technical implementation and user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
FORWARD ARCHITECTS
Description
Forward Architects is an architectural practice showcasing their portfolio of work including homes, public buildings, and workspaces. The website highlights their projects and provides navigation to about, press, and contact pages.
Key services
Architectural design, Project portfolio showcase
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, jQuery, Flexslider, WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, ExactMetrics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Google Analytics by MonsterInsights
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and fully loaded with rich content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage or main navigation.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly found in the provided HTML content.
  4. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins for analytics and tracking.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  6. Tracking via Google Analytics and Facebook Pixel is implemented without visible consent mechanisms.
  7. No security headers detected in the provided data; HTTPS is enabled.
  8. No forms detected in the provided HTML content.
  9. Logo is an inline SVG embedded in the header linking to the homepage.
  10. Navigation menu includes links to about, homes, public, workspaces, press, and contact pages.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Flexslider, and Google Analytics integration. Performance is moderate with mobile optimization rated good. The site uses asynchronous loading for analytics scripts and includes standard SEO meta tags. However, accessibility features are basic and no advanced frameworks or hosting details were detected. Technical debt appears low but opportunities exist for modernization and improved security configurations.
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 forward-architects.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 forward-architects.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.