Skip to main content

Security report for garnix.dev

Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website garnix.dev is a personal blog and content sharing platform maintained by an individual named Emilia. It primarily offers blog posts, music recommendations, and personal content, targeting a general audience interested in technology and related community topics. The site is small in scale and operates as a niche personal blog without commercial business infrastructure or formal corporate presence. Technically, the site is built with standard HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, featuring a simple but consistent design and basic mobile optimization. It uses a fetch API call to an external HTTPS endpoint for form submissions, indicating some level of modern web technology usage. However, there is no evidence of advanced frameworks, CMS, or hosting provider details. SEO and accessibility features are basic, and no structured metadata or Open Graph tags are present. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS for external requests but lacks visible security headers and formal security policies. The contact form is minimal and lacks CSRF protection or input validation beyond a non-empty check. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are published, which limits compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. The domain uses WHOIS privacy protection, which is common for personal sites and justified here. No suspicious or malicious indicators were found. Overall, the site is safe and trustworthy for general audiences but would benefit from improved security practices, privacy disclosures, and business contact information to enhance credibility and compliance. The AI score reflects a functional but basic personal website with room for improvement in security and privacy compliance.

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

7 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 garnix.dev

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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
40
Average
54

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

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 garnix.dev, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for garnix.dev 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 website operates as a personal blog without commercial business operations or revenue streams. Its market positioning is niche, targeting technology enthusiasts and community members interested in personal content and music. The business model is non-commercial, focusing on content sharing and community engagement. There are no indications of partnerships, subsidiaries, or formal business entities. The site links to various related personal and community domains, suggesting a network of like-minded individuals rather than formal partnerships. Growth indicators and strategic business insights are limited due to the personal nature of the site.

Security posture

The security posture of garnix.dev is basic. The site uses HTTPS for external communications but lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. The contact form does not implement advanced security measures like CSRF tokens or input sanitization beyond minimal checks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are published, and no security certifications are evident. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. While no critical vulnerabilities or malicious content were detected, the site would benefit from implementing standard web security best practices and formalizing privacy and incident response documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add CSRF protection and input validation on the contact form to prevent abuse and injection attacks.
  3. Publish privacy and cookie policies to improve transparency and GDPR compliance.
  4. Consider adding a security.txt file and incident response contact information to facilitate vulnerability reporting and improve security posture.
  5. Enhance SSL/TLS configuration and verify HTTPS coverage site-wide to ensure secure communications.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
blog and personal website of Emilia
Key services
blog posts, music recommendations, personal content
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Fetch API
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by fetch to HTTPS endpoint
  • No sensitive data exposed in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Personal blog site with simple navigation and content
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms policies found
  3. Minimal external tracking or advertising
  4. Uses HTTPS for external fetch but SSL configuration unknown
  5. No explicit security headers detected
  6. Contains a simple contact form sending messages to external service
  7. Links to multiple related personal/community sites
  8. No business contact emails or phone numbers found
  9. No social media links detected
  10. No structured data or Open Graph metadata present
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic web technologies: HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. It uses external CSS stylesheets and a simple JavaScript snippet to handle form submissions via the Fetch API. There is no evidence of a CMS or advanced frameworks. Performance is moderate with basic mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. SEO optimization is minimal, lacking meta tags beyond the title and viewport. The site links to multiple external domains, mostly personal or community sites. There is no use of analytics or advertising technologies detected. The technical implementation is straightforward but could be modernized with improved SEO, accessibility, and security features.
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 garnix.dev. 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 garnix.dev.

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.