Skip to main content

Security report for gucciosteria.com

Gucci Osteria · Hospitality

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website demonstrates a solid foundational security posture with no critical or high-level issues detected. Core areas such as SSL/TLS and network security are strong, scoring 100/100, ensuring encrypted communications and robust network defenses. However, several medium-level issues related to compliance and configuration gaps pose potential risks, including failure in security headers, GDPR, and NIS2 analyses. The absence of DKIM records and lack of DNSSEC implementation weaken email and DNS security, increasing susceptibility to spoofing and DNS-based attacks. Low-level issues like missing CAA records further expose the domain to unauthorized certificate issuance. Addressing these gaps will not only improve security but also enhance trust and regulatory compliance, reducing potential business risks and reputational damage. Overall, while no immediate critical threats exist, proactive measures are necessary to strengthen defenses and meet industry standards.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  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.

    • Medium

      No DKIM record found (common selectors)

      DKIM adds cryptographic signatures to emails

      What to do: Configure DKIM with your email provider

  2. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Medium

      DNSSEC Not Enabled

      DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

      What to do: Enable DNSSEC to prevent DNS spoofing attacks

      • CAPEC-142
      • RFC 4033
      • RFC 4035

Keep watching gucciosteria.com

This scan found 4 issues across 3 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
100
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
Average
93
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: 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.

Technical notes

Notes

The assessment identified the absence of critical security headers, which exposes the site to risks such as cross-site scripting and clickjacking. The failure in GDPR and NIS2 analyses indicates potential non-compliance with important data protection and cybersecurity regulations, which could result in fines and legal actions. The missing DKIM records compromise email security, making it easier for attackers to impersonate the domain in phishing campaigns. DNSSEC not being enabled leaves the DNS infrastructure vulnerable to spoofing and cache poisoning attacks, which can redirect users to malicious sites. Low-level issues like lack of CAA records mean unauthorized certificate issuance cannot be effectively prevented, increasing the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. Meanwhile, SSL/TLS and network security configurations are correctly implemented, providing a strong foundation for encrypted communications and network defense.
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 gucciosteria.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 gucciosteria.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.