Skip to main content

Security report for impactory.org

Identity Protection Service · Other · United Kingdom

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

35/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website impactory.org represents a digital presence with minimal visible content and lacks explicit business descriptions or contact information. The domain is registered to 'Identity Protection Service' in Great Britain and has a mature registration age of 6 years, indicating a stable domain ownership. The site uses common marketing and analytics technologies such as Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Stripe.js for payments, and Drift for live chat, suggesting some level of digital maturity. However, the absence of visible business content, privacy policies, and contact details limits the site's transparency and user trust. Technically, the site is served via Apache but lacks a valid SSL/TLS certificate, resulting in no HTTPS support. This is a critical security deficiency that severely impacts the site's security posture and user trust. The HTTP headers do not include modern security headers, and no DNSSEC or domain protection mechanisms are enabled, which further reduces the security robustness. Performance metrics are unavailable, but the lack of optimization and minimal content suggest a slow and basic user experience. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS and security headers exposes users to risks such as data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating poor compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, which is a concern for security transparency. The domain WHOIS data is consistent and legitimate but lacks protective measures like domain locks or DNSSEC. Overall, the website's risk profile is elevated due to critical security gaps and lack of transparency. Strategic recommendations include immediate implementation of HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate, addition of privacy and cookie policies to comply with regulations, enhancement of security headers, and publication of contact and security incident response information to improve trust and compliance.

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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

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

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • 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
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • 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

  2. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

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

Keep watching impactory.org

This scan found 23 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
15
Email security
50
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
25
Average
35

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 · found on this site
  • 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

Impactory.org appears to be a small-scale digital entity with limited publicly available business information. The domain is registered under 'Identity Protection Service' in the UK, but no detailed business model, market positioning, or revenue streams are evident from the content. The use of Stripe.js indicates potential e-commerce or payment processing capabilities, while Drift chat suggests customer engagement efforts. The target audience and industry sector remain unclear due to lack of descriptive content. The site leverages common marketing and analytics tools, indicating some investment in digital marketing. However, the absence of clear business information and contact details limits competitive analysis and partnership insights.

Security posture

The security posture of impactory.org is weak due to the lack of HTTPS and SSL/TLS encryption, exposing users to significant risks. No security headers or advanced configurations like HSTS, OCSP stapling, or session resumption are implemented. The domain does not use DNSSEC or domain protection locks, which could mitigate DNS-related attacks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. The absence of incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms further reduces security transparency. While no active vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE are detected, the fundamental lack of encryption and security best practices is a critical concern.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site immediately.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR and privacy regulation compliance.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to HTTP responses.
  4. Enable DNSSEC and domain protection locks to enhance domain security and prevent hijacking.
  5. Provide clear contact information and incident response channels to improve transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on an Apache server with DNS hosted on AWS Route 53 name servers, indicating a reliable hosting infrastructure. The tech stack includes Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Stripe.js for payment processing, and Drift for live chat support, reflecting a modern marketing and customer engagement setup. However, the lack of HTTPS and security headers indicates technical debt and security risks. Performance data is missing, but the minimal content and lack of optimization suggest slow load times. The site is mobile responsive at a basic level but lacks accessibility and SEO optimization. No CMS or frameworks are detected, implying a custom or minimal static site setup.
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 impactory.org. 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 impactory.org.

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.