Skip to main content

Security report for galaiko.rocks

Other · N/a

High risk. 19 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website nikita.galaiko.rocks serves as a personal homepage for an individual named Nikita Galaiko. It primarily functions as a personal portfolio and contact point, sharing curated lists of interests such as vinyl records, restaurants, cocktails, movies, and blogrolls. The site targets a general audience interested in these personal interests and provides contact options via email and scheduling calls. The business model is informational and personal, with no commercial or corporate presence evident. Technically, the website is built with standard HTML5 and CSS3, utilizing custom fonts loaded via WOFF2. There is no evidence of a CMS or advanced frameworks. The site appears moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices, with basic accessibility and SEO features. No advanced analytics or tracking technologies are detected, indicating a privacy-conscious approach. From a security perspective, the site lacks visible HTTPS enforcement and security headers, which lowers its security posture. There are no published security policies, incident response contacts, or cookie consent mechanisms, which are typical for personal sites but represent areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected, which is common for personal domains and does not raise immediate concerns. No vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected. Overall, the website is a safe, personal informational site with moderate technical quality but limited security and privacy compliance features. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS, adding security headers, publishing privacy and security policies, and introducing cookie consent mechanisms to enhance trust and compliance.

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

19 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: Telnet

      Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet 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: SMB

      Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB 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: MSSQL

      Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL 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: Oracle

      Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle 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: 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

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

Keep watching galaiko.rocks

This scan found 36 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
53
Average
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

The website represents a personal brand rather than a commercial business. It does not operate in a defined industry sector and lacks formal business registration or certifications. The target audience is general internet users interested in the owner's personal interests. There are no revenue streams or commercial partnerships evident. The site links to social media and community platforms such as GitHub and Mastodon, indicating engagement with tech and social communities. Growth indicators and market positioning are not applicable due to the personal nature of the site. The absence of business information and formal structure suggests a low complexity operational model.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is low to moderate. The absence of HTTPS and security headers is a significant gap, exposing users to potential risks such as data interception. No sensitive data or forms are present, reducing immediate risk. The lack of published security policies and incident response contacts limits transparency and preparedness. There is no evidence of GDPR compliance mechanisms beyond a basic privacy policy. The site does not employ tracking technologies, which reduces privacy risks. Overall, the security posture is typical for a personal site but would benefit from basic security enhancements to protect visitors and improve trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Add essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  4. Provide a security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency and trust.
  5. Regularly review and update website technologies and dependencies to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Personal homepage of Nikita Galaiko sharing personal interests such as vinyl records, restaurants, cocktails, movies, and blogrolls.
Key services
personal content sharing, contact via email and scheduling calls
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, WOFF2 fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal homepage with curated lists and contact information.
  2. No commercial or business registration data found.
  3. No security policies or incident response information published.
  4. No cookie consent or tracking detected.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or privacy protected.
  6. No WAF or blocking detected; site fully accessible.
  7. No explicit or adult content present.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple, static HTML and CSS architecture with custom font loading. There is no evidence of JavaScript frameworks or CMS platforms. Performance is moderate, likely due to minimal content and efficient font usage. Mobile optimization is good, with viewport meta tags and responsive design elements. SEO is basic, with appropriate meta charset and viewport tags but no advanced structured data or Open Graph metadata. Accessibility is basic, with semantic HTML but no ARIA roles or landmarks detected. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not discernible from the content. The technical stack is low complexity but sufficient for the site's purpose.
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 galaiko.rocks. 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 galaiko.rocks.

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.