Skip to main content

Security report for highlineaccess.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

52/100

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

The website highlineaccess.com currently presents minimal content, primarily a placeholder or coming soon page with no visible business information, contact details, or policies. The domain is well-aged, registered since 2004 with a reputable registrar, indicating a legitimate registration history, but the website itself lacks active content or engagement features. Technically, the site uses WordPress with common libraries such as jQuery, Tailwind CSS, and FontAwesome, but lacks advanced frameworks or performance optimizations. Security posture is weak, with no DNSSEC, no security headers, and no visible HTTPS enforcement details. Privacy and compliance policies are absent, and no contact or incident response information is provided, limiting trust and credibility. Overall, the site appears inactive or under development, with significant gaps in content, security, and compliance.

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

5 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 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

  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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching highlineaccess.com

This scan found 18 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. 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
57
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
52

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

Due to the lack of visible business information, it is not possible to determine market positioning, competitive advantages, or business model insights. The domain age suggests an established entity, but the website does not currently reflect active operations or customer engagement. No partnerships, certifications, or trust signals are present. The absence of contact details and policies further limits business credibility and customer trust.

Security posture

The security maturity level is low. Key vulnerabilities include lack of DNSSEC, absence of security headers, and no visible HTTPS enforcement or advanced security configurations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. The site does not demonstrate GDPR or other compliance adherence. These gaps expose the site to potential risks such as domain hijacking, man-in-the-middle attacks, and reduced user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  2. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  4. Publish clear contact information and establish incident response contacts for security and abuse reporting.
  5. Develop and publish business content to improve credibility, user engagement, and SEO.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Tailwind CSS, FontAwesome
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

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 minimal and appears to be a placeholder or coming soon page.
  2. No contact information or business details are provided on the site.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  5. No social media or external business links present.
  6. Website uses WordPress with a coming soon plugin and standard libraries like jQuery, Tailwind CSS, and FontAwesome.
  7. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  8. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  9. Domain is old and registered with a known registrar but website content does not reflect an active business presence.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a coming soon plugin and uses standard libraries such as jQuery, Tailwind CSS, and FontAwesome. The site lacks advanced frameworks or performance optimizations and shows basic mobile responsiveness. No analytics or tracking tools are detected. Hosting appears to be via GoDaddy inferred from nameservers. The site has minimal content and no forms or interactive elements, indicating technical immaturity or early development stage. There is opportunity to modernize the tech stack, improve performance, and enhance accessibility and SEO.
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 highlineaccess.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 highlineaccess.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.