Skip to main content

Security report for hundstat.us

Hund · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Hund.io operates a status page at hundstat.us providing real-time and historical operational status for its services including website, DNS, GitLab, and platform components. The site targets users and customers who require transparency on service availability and performance. The business model centers on operational monitoring and status reporting, positioning Hund.io as a technology service provider in the monitoring niche. The website content is professional and consistent with the brand, but lacks comprehensive business and compliance information. Technically, the site is hosted on AWS infrastructure with DNS managed partly by AWS and Hurricane Electric. The technology stack includes standard web technologies with Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for tracking. However, the site suffers from slow performance and lacks modern optimizations such as full mobile responsiveness and accessibility features. From a security perspective, the site has critical weaknesses including an invalid or missing SSL certificate, absence of HTTPS, no security headers, and no DNSSEC or CAA records. These issues significantly reduce the security posture and expose users to risks. Additionally, there is no evidence of privacy compliance, incident response policies, or contact information for security matters. Overall, the site presents moderate business credibility but requires urgent improvements in security and privacy compliance to reduce risk and enhance trust. Strategic recommendations include obtaining a valid SSL certificate, enabling HTTPS, implementing security headers, and publishing privacy and security policies.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

5 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 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics

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

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

Keep watching hundstat.us

This scan found 16 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
50
Security headers
55
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
61

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

Hund.io's market positioning as a status and monitoring service provider is clear, focusing on operational transparency for its platform and infrastructure components. The company leverages AWS for hosting and integrates common analytics tools. The absence of detailed business information, contact data, and compliance documentation suggests a small-scale operation or a service primarily targeted at existing customers. The use of multiple DNS providers indicates a focus on redundancy and reliability. Growth indicators and partnerships are not evident from the site content. The business model likely relies on subscription or service fees for hosted status pages and monitoring services.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of hundstat.us is low due to the lack of HTTPS and an invalid SSL certificate, which is a critical vulnerability. The absence of security headers and DNS security features further weakens the security posture. There are no visible compliance measures for GDPR or incident response readiness. The site does not expose sensitive data or credentials, but the lack of encryption and security controls poses risks for data interception and user trust. The security culture appears minimal, with no published policies or contact channels for security incidents. Addressing these gaps is essential to protect users and maintain operational integrity.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site.
  2. Implement HTTP security headers including HSTS, Content Security Policy, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Configure DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance domain security and certificate issuance control.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to improve compliance.
  5. Add contact information and a security incident response policy to enhance transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS, and uses Google Fonts and Google Analytics for styling and tracking. Hosting is on AWS as indicated by DNS nameservers. Performance is suboptimal with a load time of over 6 seconds and a large page size, suggesting opportunities for optimization. The site lacks modern security protocols and configurations, including no TLS support and missing security headers. There is no CMS detected, indicating a custom or static site. Technical debt is evident in the lack of SSL and security best practices, which could impact business operations and user trust if not addressed.
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 hundstat.us. 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 hundstat.us.

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.