Skip to main content

Security report for inmdock.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website at inmdock.com is currently inaccessible, presenting a 403 Forbidden error page that blocks access to any meaningful content. The domain is newly registered in June 2024 with Tucows Domains Inc. as the registrar and uses SiteGround nameservers for hosting. There is no visible business information, contact details, or policy documents on the site, which severely limits the ability to assess the company's operations or market position. The technical infrastructure appears minimal with no advanced technologies or CMS detected, and no analytics or tracking scripts are present. Security posture is weak with no DNSSEC enabled and no security headers observed. Overall, the site is in an early or restricted state, providing no substantive content or trust signals.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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: 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching inmdock.com

This scan found 28 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
35
Average
45

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

Due to the lack of accessible content and absence of business-related information, no detailed business intelligence can be derived. The domain age is consistent with a new or developing business, but no market positioning, services, or target audience can be identified. There are no partnerships, certifications, or trust indicators visible. The business model and sector remain unknown.

Security posture

The security posture is limited by the lack of accessible content and technical details. The domain does not have DNSSEC enabled, and no security headers are present in the HTML content. The site uses HTTPS as inferred from the URL but no SSL configuration details are available. The 403 Forbidden error suggests restrictive access controls, which may be intentional but also limits transparency. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found. Overall, the security maturity appears low with significant room for improvement.

Recommendations

  1. Enable proper website access to allow content visibility and user interaction.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to enhance domain security.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for business credibility.
  6. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
  7. Improve website design and content quality to enhance user experience and SEO.
  8. Consider adding analytics and monitoring tools with privacy compliance.
  9. Ensure mobile optimization and accessibility standards are met.
  10. Develop an incident response plan and publish relevant contact channels.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website returns a 403 Forbidden error page indicating access is blocked or restricted. No WAF vendor branding detected but content is inaccessible. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

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 is inaccessible due to 403 Forbidden error
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No forms or interactive elements detected
  5. No external business-related links except Google Fonts and SiteGround nameservers
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  7. Minimal technical and security configurations observed
  8. WHOIS data shows recent domain registration with Tucows Domains Inc. registrar
  9. DNSSEC is not enabled
  10. No security headers or SSL details available from content
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves only a 403 Forbidden error page with no functional content or interactive elements. The HTML is valid but minimal, with only basic styling and SVG graphics for the error message. The domain is hosted on SiteGround, a reputable hosting provider. No CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. External resources are limited to Google Fonts. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be properly assessed due to lack of content. The absence of SEO metadata and structured data further limits discoverability. Technical debt is likely high given the incomplete state of the 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 inmdock.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 inmdock.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.