Skip to main content

Security report for grunfin.com

Grünfin · Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

Grünfin's website indicates that the business is closed, with minimal content and no active business information or contact details. The site is hosted on Google Sites and uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration, but lacks privacy policies, terms of service, and security headers. The WHOIS data is unavailable, suggesting the domain may be unregistered or expired, which aligns with the business closure message. Overall, the digital presence is minimal and does not support active business operations.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed
6of 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 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 Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  2. 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 grunfin.com

This scan found 14 issues across 5 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
Email security
93
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
79
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 company appears to have ceased operations, as indicated by the website content and lack of business information. There is no evidence of active market positioning, partnerships, or services. The website does not provide contact information or business credentials, limiting insights into revenue streams or customer segments. The use of Google Sites suggests a small-scale or temporary web presence.

Security posture

The website benefits from HTTPS and good SSL configuration, but lacks important security headers and does not provide a privacy policy or terms of service. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The absence of WHOIS data raises concerns about domain legitimacy. Overall, the security posture is basic and could be improved significantly if the business were operational.

Recommendations

  1. If the business reopens, register and maintain domain WHOIS information properly.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service documents.
  3. Add clear contact information including security and incident response contacts.
  4. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Grünfin
Description
Grünfin is closed
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Sites, Google Fonts, Google APIs, Google Analytics (implied by scripts), Google OAuth
Platforms
Google Sites
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (implied)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and states the business is closed.
  2. No contact information or business details provided.
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service found.
  4. Cookie consent banner is present and functional.
  5. Website is hosted on Google Sites platform.
  6. No WHOIS data available, domain appears unregistered or expired.
  7. No security headers detected in HTML content.
  8. No forms or data collection fields present.
  9. No social media or external business-related links found.
  10. Website uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Google Sites, leveraging Google Fonts and Google APIs. It uses HTTPS with a strong SSL configuration. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization. The site lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. No forms or interactive elements are present, reducing attack surface but also limiting user engagement. The technical infrastructure is simple and suitable for a basic informational site but lacks sophistication for a commercial or active business platform.
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 grunfin.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 grunfin.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.