Skip to main content

Security report for genoma.work

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.genoma.work is a Wix-hosted site with minimal accessible content and no visible business or contact information. The site uses multiple analytics and tracking technologies including Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, and Google Tag Manager, indicating an intent to monitor user behavior extensively. However, the absence of privacy policies, cookie consent mechanisms, and contact details reflects poor privacy compliance and business transparency. The WHOIS data is completely unavailable, suggesting privacy protection or incomplete domain registration, which negatively impacts trustworthiness. Technically, the site is built on a modern platform but lacks advanced security headers and SEO optimization. Overall, the site presents a low maturity digital presence with significant gaps in security, privacy, and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

6 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 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

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

Keep watching genoma.work

This scan found 24 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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
67

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

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Due to the lack of explicit business information, the market positioning and business model cannot be confidently determined. The site appears to be in early development or minimal operation stage, targeting a general audience without clear sector focus. The extensive use of tracking tools suggests a data-driven approach to user engagement, but the absence of contact or legal information limits credibility. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The business intelligence is limited by the minimal content and lack of transparency.

Security posture

The security posture is weak with no visible security headers, no HTTPS verification in the data provided, and no incident response or security policy information. The presence of multiple third-party tracking scripts without privacy compliance increases risk. The lack of WHOIS data further reduces trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site would benefit from implementing standard security best practices including HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and transparent privacy policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and verify configuration.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance and consent mechanisms.
  3. Publish clear contact information including business address, phone, and email.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Improve SEO and accessibility to enhance user experience and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Wix, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, Piano Analytics
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, Google Analytics (via GTM), Piano Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, Piano Analytics
Marketing tools
Piano Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and trackers.
  2. No WHOIS data available, indicating privacy protection or incomplete registration.
  3. No visible contact information or business details on the site.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. Extensive use of tracking and analytics scripts without visible privacy compliance.
  6. Content is minimal and lacks business descriptive information.
  7. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  8. No signs of WAF or content blocking detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, leveraging Wix's content delivery and hosting infrastructure. It uses common analytics and tracking technologies such as Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, Facebook Pixel, and Google Tag Manager. The site includes polyfills and legacy support scripts indicating compatibility considerations. Performance is moderate with standard Wix optimizations. Mobile optimization is basic but present. SEO is minimal with no structured data or meta tags beyond defaults. The site lacks advanced security configurations and does not expose sensitive data in the HTML content.
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 genoma.work. 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 genoma.work.

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.