Skip to main content

Security report for gname.com

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

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

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  2. 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching gname.com

This scan found 26 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
57
Security headers
20
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
58

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 gname.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2,000
Employees
0
Customers
1,998
Third parties
2
Weak passwords
10%

4 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for gname.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

GNAME operates in the competitive domain registration and hosting market, offering a broad portfolio of domain extensions and cloud services. Its business model includes direct domain sales, auctions, backorders, and cloud product subscriptions. The platform targets a global audience with multilingual support and extensive domain options. The presence of multiple advertising and tracking services indicates a focus on marketing and customer acquisition. Lack of explicit company contact details and missing WHOIS data may impact trust and credibility. The company appears medium-sized with consistent branding and a solid technical foundation, but transparency and compliance enhancements could strengthen market position.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and uses CSRF tokens for user sessions, indicating a baseline security maturity. However, absence of security headers like Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy is published, limiting incident response transparency. The extensive use of third-party analytics and advertising scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. Overall, security posture is moderate but could benefit from enhanced headers, published policies, and reduced third-party dependencies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to improve protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements to enhance user trust and legal compliance.
  3. Establish and publish a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure program to improve incident response and transparency.
  4. Provide clear and verified company contact information including support emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration data to ensure consistency and legitimacy, reducing suspicion and improving trust.

Contact details published on the site

Registration number
Registration Notice
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GNAME
Description
GNAME provides a comprehensive suite of domain services, including registration, search, buying and selling, transfers, virtual hosting, VPS servers, SSL certificates, website security protection, and enterprise email.
Key services
Domain registration, Domain transfer, Domain auction and backorder, SSL certificates, VPS hosting, Website protection, Professional email, WordPress website creation
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, jQuery, Swiper.js, Google Tag Manager, Bing Ads, Baidu Analytics, WebSocket
Frameworks
layui
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of CSRF tokens in user info
  • Secure login and registration forms

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM), Bing UET, Baidu Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads, Bing Ads, Baidu Ads
Tracking pixels
Bing UET, Baidu Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and multiple services
  2. No WHOIS data available indicating possible domain registration issues
  3. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service pages detected in provided content
  4. Extensive use of third-party analytics and advertising scripts
  5. No direct company contact emails or phone numbers found in content
  6. Strong focus on domain registration and related cloud services
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
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 gname.com. 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 gname.com.

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.