Skip to main content

Security report for indica.pictures

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

52/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website indica.pictures/lander is currently a minimal placeholder or parking page with very limited content. It primarily loads a React-based JavaScript bundle and includes Google Adsense scripts for advertising. There is no visible business information, metadata, or structured data to describe the company or its services. The lack of contact details, privacy policies, or terms of service indicates a very low level of digital maturity and business presence. Technically, the site uses modern JavaScript frameworks but lacks SEO optimization, accessibility features, and security headers. There is no evidence of HTTPS or SSL configuration from the provided data. The WHOIS information is unavailable due to unsupported TLD, preventing verification of domain ownership or legitimacy. From a security perspective, the site shows no signs of advanced security measures or compliance with privacy regulations such as GDPR. The absence of contact information and security policies further reduces trustworthiness. No vulnerabilities or malicious indicators were detected, but the minimal content limits comprehensive security assessment. Overall, the site presents a low-risk profile due to its minimal content but also a low trust and credibility level. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS, adding privacy and cookie policies, providing clear business and contact information, and improving SEO and accessibility to enhance user trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  3. 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 indica.pictures

This scan found 20 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. 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
0
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
52

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

Due to the lack of business-related content and metadata, it is not possible to determine the market positioning, business model, or target customer segments for indica.pictures. The site appears to be a parked domain or placeholder without active business operations. No revenue streams, partnerships, or growth indicators are evident. The absence of company branding or legal information suggests no active commercial presence.

Security posture

The current security posture is minimal and immature. No HTTPS or SSL details were found, and no security headers are present. The site lacks privacy and cookie policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. There is no evidence of compliance with GDPR or other data protection frameworks. The absence of registrant data in WHOIS further reduces trust. While no active vulnerabilities were detected, the lack of security best practices and transparency is a concern.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add clear business contact information including email, phone, and physical address.
  4. Incorporate security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options to enhance security.
  5. Improve website content quality, SEO, and accessibility to build trust and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
React (inferred from main.bd170100.js)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Adsense
Transparency
basic

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 parking page.
  2. No metadata, Open Graph tags, or structured data present.
  3. No forms or user input fields detected.
  4. No contact information or social media links found.
  5. Scripts indicate use of React and Google Adsense for advertising.
  6. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  7. No security headers or HTTPS information available.
  8. WHOIS data is unavailable due to unsupported TLD; no registrar or registrant info extracted.
  9. No evidence of adult or explicit content.
  10. No WAF or security challenge detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses React JavaScript framework as indicated by the main.bd170100.js script. The site loads minimal HTML content with no metadata or structured data. Google Adsense is integrated for advertising purposes. There is no CMS or hosting provider information available. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content but no explicit performance metrics are provided. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic due to lack of content and features. SEO optimization is poor due to absence of meta tags and descriptive content.
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 indica.pictures. 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 indica.pictures.

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.