Skip to main content

Security report for inchase.net

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website www.inchase.net currently presents minimal content, primarily a placeholder page with a single contact email address. There is no substantive business information, branding, or detailed description of services. The site is built on WordPress using the SeedProd Coming Soon plugin, indicating it may be under development or inactive. Technical infrastructure is basic, with use of jQuery, Tailwind CSS, and FontAwesome, but lacks advanced frameworks or performance optimizations. Security posture is weak due to absence of HTTPS verification, security headers, and privacy policies. The WHOIS lookup failed to retrieve any domain registration data, suggesting the domain may be unregistered, expired, or privacy protected without public data. Overall, the site lacks trust signals and business credibility, posing a high risk for users and visitors.

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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching inchase.net

This scan found 15 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. See sample alerts.

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
75
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
75

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention inchase.net, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for inchase.net right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

No clear business intelligence can be derived from the website content due to lack of company name, description, or sector information. The domain's WHOIS data is missing, which further obscures ownership and legitimacy. The site does not display any partnerships, certifications, or market positioning. The business model and target audience are not discernible. The presence of only a contact email suggests minimal operational activity or a placeholder status.

Security posture

The security posture is poor with no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The absence of WHOIS data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, which limits data collection but also indicates lack of user engagement monitoring. Overall, the site is vulnerable to trust and security issues and requires significant improvements to meet basic security and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Register or verify domain WHOIS information to establish legitimacy and transparency.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user connections.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Introduce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection.
  5. Develop substantive website content including business description, services, and trust indicators to improve credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Tailwind CSS, FontAwesome, SeedProd Coming Soon Plugin
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. Only one contact email found: contact@inchase.net
  4. No phone numbers, physical addresses, or social media links detected
  5. Website uses WordPress with SeedProd Coming Soon plugin
  6. No security headers or SSL configuration details available
  7. No analytics or tracking scripts detected beyond jQuery and plugin scripts
  8. WHOIS data unavailable, indicating domain may be unregistered or expired
  9. No trust or security indicators present
  10. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with the SeedProd Coming Soon plugin, jQuery library, Tailwind CSS, and FontAwesome icons. The site lacks advanced frameworks or performance optimization techniques. Mobile optimization is basic, and accessibility features are minimal. No SEO enhancements or structured data (JSON-LD) are present. The site does not utilize analytics or marketing tools. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not discernible from the provided data. Overall, the technical implementation is basic and suitable only for a placeholder or under-construction site.
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 inchase.net. 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 inchase.net.

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.