Skip to main content

Security report for gotofoods.com

GoTo Foods · Retail · N/a

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 1 other check.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

GoTo Foods is a company focused on providing franchise opportunities in the food sector, targeting potential franchisees and investors. The website is built on WordPress and uses common technologies such as jQuery and the Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. The site is accessible without any WAF or security challenges, and it presents a professional design with good SEO optimization. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about the domain's legitimacy and trustworthiness. Additionally, the lack of privacy policies, cookie consent mechanisms, and contact information indicates gaps in compliance and user trust. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but missing important security headers and policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  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 gotofoods.com

This scan found 18 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
47
Security headers
90
Email security
75
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
78

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

The business operates on a franchise model within the retail food industry, positioning itself as a leading franchise opportunity provider. The website targets potential franchisees and investors, offering franchise support and development services. The company appears to be small in size with no clear information on founding year or parent company. The absence of detailed business information and contact details limits the ability to fully assess the company's market position and growth potential. The use of third-party marketing tools and tracking scripts suggests an active marketing approach but lacks transparency in privacy compliance.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, which is a fundamental security requirement. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or Strict-Transport-Security were detected, which are important for mitigating common web vulnerabilities. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as incident response contacts, indicates a low maturity in security governance and compliance. No known vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were identified in the provided content, but the lack of security best practices and transparency reduces overall security confidence. The domain's unclear registration status further impacts trust and security perception.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish clear contact information including support emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration to ensure domain legitimacy and transparency.
  5. Establish an incident response policy and provide dedicated security contact channels.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GoTo Foods
Description
GoTo Foods offers franchise opportunities in the food sector, focusing on expanding their brand through franchising.
Key services
Franchise opportunities, Franchise support and development
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Yoast SEO plugin, WordPress
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
truyo.com
Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with the Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a modern and SEO-friendly platform. It uses jQuery and external scripts from third-party domains for tracking and marketing. The site shows good mobile optimization and design quality but lacks advanced accessibility features. Performance is moderate with some optimization potential. The absence of detailed hosting provider information and security headers suggests room for infrastructure improvements. Overall, the technical implementation supports business needs but requires enhancements in security and compliance to reduce risks.
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 gotofoods.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 gotofoods.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.