Skip to main content

Security report for groundup.studio

Other · United States

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website groundup.studio is currently inaccessible due to a Cloudflare Turnstile human verification challenge page, which blocks access to the actual content. As a result, no business description, contact information, or policies are visible. The domain is registered with privacy protection via Domains By Proxy, LLC in the US, created in 2020, which is consistent with a small business or studio but lacks transparency. The technical infrastructure includes Cloudflare protection and standard web technologies, but no CMS or frameworks are detectable. Security posture cannot be fully assessed due to lack of content and security headers. Overall, the site appears to be protected by a WAF, limiting analysis and reducing trust signals. Strategic recommendations include enabling public access to business information, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and improving security headers and transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

7 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 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 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

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

Keep watching groundup.studio

This scan found 21 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
55
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
68

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 WAF challenge, no direct business intelligence can be extracted. The domain age and registration suggest a small entity likely operating in the creative or studio sector. No partner or subsidiary domains are identified. The lack of visible content or contact details limits assessment of market positioning, revenue streams, or customer segments. The use of Cloudflare indicates a focus on security and performance, but the absence of public business data reduces credibility and market visibility.

Security posture

The security posture is partially obscured by the Cloudflare WAF challenge. HTTPS is presumably enabled given Cloudflare usage, but no security headers are visible in the provided HTML. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data are detected, but the lack of visible policies and contact channels for incident response is a compliance gap. The domain uses privacy protection, which is common but reduces transparency. Overall, security maturity appears basic with room for improvement in policy publication and header implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Remove or minimize WAF challenge for legitimate users to allow content access and improve trust.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to enhance GDPR compliance and user trust.
  3. Add clear contact information including security incident response contacts.
  4. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Enable DNSSEC to improve domain security and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. The HTML content is a Cloudflare Turnstile human verification challenge page blocking access to the actual website content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare Turnstile, JavaScript, HTML5, CSS3
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to Cloudflare Turnstile challenge.
  2. No visible business content, policies, or contact information.
  3. Domain is privacy protected, registered in US, created in 2020.
  4. No metadata, Open Graph, or structured data found.
  5. No forms or user input fields visible except hidden Turnstile response input.
  6. No external business-related links except Cloudflare domains.
  7. No emails, phone numbers, or social media links found.
  8. No security headers or policies visible in HTML content.
  9. Website appears to be protected by Cloudflare WAF with human verification.
  10. Analysis incomplete due to WAF/security mechanisms. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Cloudflare for DNS and security, including the Turnstile CAPTCHA for bot mitigation. The HTML is minimal and serves only the challenge page, with no CMS or frameworks detected. No SEO or accessibility features are present due to blocked content. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed. The domain is registered with GoDaddy via privacy protection, which is typical but reduces transparency. Technical risks include potential user friction due to the challenge page and lack of visible security headers.
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 groundup.studio. 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 groundup.studio.

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.