Skip to main content

Security report for gashawk.io

GasHawk · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

GasHawk is a technology-focused company providing blockchain users and enterprises with tools to optimize gas fees and enhance on-chain security. The website presents a professional and modern design built using Framer, targeting blockchain developers and enterprises seeking efficiency and security in their on-chain activities. The platform offers services such as gas savings analysis and enterprise blockchain solutions, positioning itself as an emerging player in the blockchain technology sector. Technically, the website leverages modern JavaScript modules and Google Fonts, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. However, the absence of visible security headers and privacy policies indicates room for improvement in security and compliance. The WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is common but limits transparency. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced security practices and clearer compliance documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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

5 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 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 Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching gashawk.io

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. See sample alerts.

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
52
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
68

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 gashawk.io, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for gashawk.io 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

GasHawk operates in the blockchain technology sector, focusing on gas fee optimization and security services. Its business model appears to be SaaS-based, offering tools and analytics to blockchain users and enterprises. The target market includes blockchain developers, enterprises, and possibly DeFi participants. The presence of documentation and an app launch link suggests an active development and user engagement strategy. The company is small-sized with no public parent or subsidiary information. The lack of contact details and privacy policies may impact user trust and regulatory compliance. The company’s market position is that of an emerging technology provider with potential growth in the blockchain ecosystem.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS and secure form submission methods but lacks visible security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options, which are important for mitigating common web vulnerabilities. No incident response or security policy information is provided, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates compliance gaps, particularly with GDPR. The WHOIS privacy protection is typical but reduces transparency. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires enhancements in headers, policies, and incident response readiness to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other data protection regulations.
  3. Add contact information and a dedicated security or incident response page with relevant contact channels.
  4. Conduct a security audit of third-party scripts and dependencies to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Improve transparency by providing more business registration details and reducing reliance on WHOIS privacy protection where possible.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GasHawk
Description
GasHawk makes living on-chain more efficient, safe, and secure.
Key services
Gas fee savings analysis, On-chain security enhancements, Enterprise blockchain solutions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Framer (site generator), JavaScript modules, Google Fonts (Poppins, Inter)
Frameworks
Framer
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Secure form input with POST method

Analytics and tracking

Services
Framer events tracking
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
framer.com events script
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge
  2. WHOIS data is not publicly available, indicating privacy protection
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on main page
  4. Site uses Framer for design and hosting
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found
  6. Site includes a form to input blockchain addresses for gas savings check
  7. External links mostly point to app subdomain and documentation
  8. No social media links or business registration details found
  9. No security headers detected in provided data
  10. No explicit security or incident response policies found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Framer, a modern design and prototyping tool that generates static and dynamic content with JavaScript modules. It uses Google Fonts for typography and includes event tracking scripts from Framer. The site is moderately performant with good mobile responsiveness and basic accessibility features. SEO optimization is basic with proper meta tags and Open Graph data but lacks structured data like JSON-LD. Hosting details are not explicitly found. The technical stack is modern but could benefit from enhanced accessibility and performance optimizations, as well as 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 gashawk.io. 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 gashawk.io.

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.