Skip to main content

Security report for greehill.com

Other · N/a

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

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website www.greehill.com appears to be a Wix-hosted site with minimal content and no visible business or contact information. The domain WHOIS query returned no registration data, indicating the domain may be unregistered, newly registered, or privacy protected with no public data. The site lacks privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, and no forms or data collection mechanisms were found. Technically, the site uses Wix platform scripts and Sentry for error monitoring but lacks security headers and SSL configuration details. Overall, the site presents a low maturity digital footprint with poor content quality and minimal business credibility. Security posture is weak due to missing best practices and lack of transparency. The domain's legitimacy is questionable due to missing WHOIS data, which is a critical trust concern.

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

4 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

  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

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

Keep watching greehill.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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
90
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
76

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

No clear business information, company name, or sector is identified from the website content or metadata. The site does not provide contact details, social media links, or business descriptions. The lack of WHOIS data further obscures the business identity. The site appears to be a placeholder or inactive domain with no evident market positioning or business model. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests low compliance maturity. Overall, the business intelligence is minimal and insufficient to assess market presence or competitive advantages.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or X-Content-Type-Options. No incident response or security policy information is provided. The site uses Sentry for error monitoring, which is a positive indicator but insufficient alone. The absence of privacy and cookie policies and contact information for security incidents further weakens the security maturity. The domain's WHOIS data is missing, raising concerns about legitimacy and potential risk. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content, but the lack of security best practices is notable.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is publicly available or justified with privacy protection.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance and consent mechanisms.
  4. Publish clear contact information including business address, phone, and email for trust and incident response.
  5. Implement security headers and conduct regular security audits to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, core-js, Sentry
Platforms
Wix.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

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 assets
  2. No WHOIS registration data found for the domain
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected
  4. No contact information or business details found on the site
  5. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected
  6. No social media or external business links found
  7. No security headers or SSL configuration details available
  8. Content is minimal and lacks business or marketing information
  9. No evidence of WAF or security blocking mechanisms
  10. Site appears inactive, unregistered, or placeholder
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, utilizing Wix's standard scripts and assets. It includes the Sentry JavaScript SDK for error monitoring. The site lacks advanced frameworks or custom technologies. Performance appears moderate given the Wix hosting environment. Mobile optimization is basic but present. Accessibility and SEO optimizations are minimal, with no meta tags or structured data detected. The site does not include forms or interactive elements. Hosting is provided by Wix, with static assets served from Wix's CDN. Overall, the technical infrastructure is standard for a Wix site but lacks enhancements for SEO, accessibility, and security.
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 greehill.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 greehill.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.