Skip to main content

Security report for hoefats.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

71/100

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

The website hofats.com is currently inaccessible beyond a Web Application Firewall (WAF) security challenge page indicating 'Under Attack Mode - checking your browser'. This prevents access to any substantive content, business information, or user interaction elements. The domain is registered since 2011 with InterNetX GmbH as registrar, showing a stable registration history but no public registrant details. The lack of accessible content and policies limits the ability to assess the company's market position, services, or compliance posture. Technically, the site uses JavaScript for the challenge page but no other detectable frameworks or CMS. Security posture cannot be fully evaluated due to the blocking mechanism, but no SSL or security headers data was provided. Overall, the site appears to be protected by a generic WAF, which restricts analysis and reduces transparency.

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 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

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

Keep watching hoefats.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
72
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
71

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 WAF challenge page, no business intelligence data such as company name, sector, or contact information is available. The domain age suggests an established presence since 2011, but no further insights into business model, market positioning, or partnerships can be derived. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies indicates a lack of visible compliance documentation. No marketing or analytics tools are detected, suggesting minimal digital marketing footprint or that such scripts are blocked by the WAF.

Security posture

The security posture is indeterminate due to the WAF blocking access to the main content. The presence of a security challenge page indicates some level of protection against attacks, but no details on SSL configuration, security headers, or vulnerability disclosures are available. No incident response or security policy information is found. The lack of visible privacy and cookie policies also points to compliance gaps. The domain registration is consistent and not privacy protected, which is positive for transparency. Overall, the security maturity cannot be fully assessed but the blocking mechanism suggests a defensive security approach.

Recommendations

  1. Configure the WAF to allow legitimate user access or provide a bypass for trusted traffic to enable content visibility and analysis.
  2. Implement and publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Add contact information and business details on the website to enhance credibility and customer engagement.
  4. Ensure HTTPS is properly configured with valid SSL/TLS certificates and security headers are implemented.
  5. Consider publishing a security policy and incident response contact to demonstrate security maturity and readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website is displaying an 'Under Attack Mode - checking your browser' page indicating a WAF or security challenge blocking direct access to content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
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 is currently blocked by a WAF or security challenge page.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the landing page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  5. No external marketing or analytics scripts detected.
  6. Domain is registered since 2011 with no privacy protection.
  7. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
  8. Website content is minimal and inaccessible for full analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves only a WAF challenge page implemented with JavaScript and minimal HTML content. No CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. The domain is registered with InterNetX GmbH, but hosting provider details are not explicit. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to content blocking. SEO and accessibility are poor given the lack of content and meta tags. The technical infrastructure appears minimal and focused on security blocking rather than content delivery. Modernization opportunities include enabling content access, improving SEO metadata, and adopting standard web technologies for better user experience.
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 hoefats.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 hoefats.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.