Skip to main content

Security report for gayest.dev

Technology · N/a

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

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website gayest.dev is a personal developer portfolio site belonging to an individual named Ivy, who identifies with she/her pronouns. The site showcases several open-source projects primarily related to software development and fediverse services, including custom init systems, CI detection tools, and Lua-based utilities. It also highlights several related fediverse and git hosting services operated or affiliated with the owner. The site targets developers and fediverse users, positioning itself as a niche personal brand within the technology community. The business model is primarily personal branding and project showcasing without commercial transactions evident. Technically, the site is built with straightforward HTML and CSS, with no detected CMS or advanced frameworks. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile use but lacks advanced accessibility and SEO features. The technology stack is simple and appropriate for a personal portfolio, with links to related projects and services hosted on various domains. No analytics or advertising technologies are detected, indicating a privacy-conscious approach. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS as indicated by the URL, but no security headers were detected in the provided data. The only form present uses the GET method, which is not ideal for protecting user input. There are no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, nor any incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. The domain registration uses privacy protection, which is reasonable for a personal site. No suspicious patterns or vulnerabilities were identified, but security posture is basic and could be improved. Overall, the site is safe, with no adult or explicit content, and presents a moderate level of trustworthiness. The lack of formal policies and security best practices limits its compliance and security maturity. Strategic recommendations include adding privacy and cookie policies, improving form security, implementing security headers, and providing vulnerability disclosure and incident response information to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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 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

    • 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 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 gayest.dev

This scan found 17 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
65
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
74

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 gayest.dev, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for gayest.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 site operates as a personal developer portfolio focusing on open-source software and fediverse-related services. Its market positioning is niche, targeting developers and fediverse enthusiasts. The business model is non-commercial, centered on personal branding and community engagement. Revenue streams are not evident, suggesting a hobbyist or community-driven approach. The partnership ecosystem includes several related fediverse and personal project domains, indicating a collaborative network. Growth indicators are limited but the presence of multiple projects and services suggests active development. Strategic observations highlight the importance of enhancing security and compliance to support potential future growth or professional use.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is basic. The site uses HTTPS but lacks critical security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options. The use of GET method for form submission exposes user input in URLs, which is a minor vulnerability. There are no visible compliance measures for GDPR or other privacy regulations, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. Data protection practices appear minimal, with no data retention or privacy policies. The security culture is informal, consistent with a personal site. Business impact of vulnerabilities is low given the site's nature, but improvements are recommended to protect user data and enhance trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  2. Change form submission method from GET to POST to protect user input from exposure in URLs.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  4. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact to demonstrate security readiness.
  5. Consider HTTPS enforcement and regular security audits to maintain a secure environment.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Personal developer portfolio site showcasing projects and services related to software development and fediverse instances.
Key services
kanit (init system), cinfo (CI detection tool), lexpect (Lua expect tool), fediverse instances (sharkey, iceshrimp), git instance (forgejo), status tracker (uptime kuma)
Content quality
good
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, Lua (project related), Fediverse software (implied)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS implied by URL (https://gayest.dev/)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • Form uses GET method (less secure for sensitive data)

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal developer portfolio with a casual and informal tone.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. Contact available via email and a simple GET form.
  4. No security policies or incident response information provided.
  5. No analytics or advertising detected.
  6. No explicit or adult content present.
  7. Site links to multiple related fediverse and developer service domains.
  8. No WAF or blocking detected; content fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML5 and CSS without detectable CMS or JavaScript frameworks. The tech stack is minimal, reflecting a simple personal portfolio. Performance is moderate with no advanced optimization techniques evident. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but functional. SEO is minimal, relying on basic meta tags and Open Graph properties. The site links to multiple related domains, indicating a distributed service ecosystem. Technical risks include lack of security headers and use of GET for form data. Modernization opportunities include adopting responsive design frameworks, improving accessibility, and implementing security best practices.
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 gayest.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 gayest.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.