Skip to main content

Security report for inventure.design

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website inventure.design presents a minimalistic design-focused homepage with limited textual content and no visible business descriptions or contact information. The site appears to be a design or creative service platform but lacks explicit details about the company, its services, or market positioning. The technical infrastructure includes usage of Amazon CloudFront for hosting and Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking, indicating a basic level of digital maturity. However, the absence of privacy and cookie policies, contact details, and WHOIS data transparency suggests gaps in compliance and trustworthiness. Security posture is weak due to missing security headers and lack of visible security best practices. Overall, the site is accessible without WAF or security challenges but requires significant improvements in transparency, compliance, and security to enhance trust and professionalism.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  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.

    • Medium

      DMARC not enforcing

      DMARC policy is set to "none"

      What to do: Gradually move to "quarantine" then "reject" policy

    • Medium

      No MTA-STS Policy

      MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

      What to do: Implement MTA-STS to prevent downgrade attacks

  2. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Medium

      DNSSEC Not Enabled

      DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

      What to do: Enable DNSSEC to prevent DNS spoofing attacks

      • CAPEC-142
      • RFC 4033
      • RFC 4035

Keep watching inventure.design

This scan found 10 issues across 4 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
100
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
Average
88
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: 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

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 explicit business information, the market positioning and business model remain unclear. The site likely targets clients interested in design services but does not provide clear value propositions or service descriptions. There are no visible partnerships, certifications, or trust signals that would indicate competitive advantages or growth indicators. The absence of contact information and policies limits the ability to assess customer engagement or support infrastructure.

Security posture

The security maturity level is low, with no detected security headers and no evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. The site uses HTTPS (implied by canonical URL) but lacks advanced security configurations. No forms or input fields were found, reducing attack surface but also limiting user interaction. The missing WHOIS data and privacy policies raise compliance concerns, particularly regarding GDPR and data protection regulations. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not evident.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  2. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility.
  3. Configure and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to enhance transparency and trust.
  5. Obtain and display WHOIS registration details or ensure domain registration transparency to improve legitimacy.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern CDN (Amazon CloudFront) and integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking. The HTML structure is valid but minimal, with limited meta tags and no structured data (JSON-LD) found. Mobile optimization is good based on viewport meta tag and responsive CSS. SEO optimization is basic due to missing descriptions and Open Graph content. Accessibility features are minimal. Performance is moderate but could be improved with enhanced technical SEO and content richness. No CMS or frameworks were detected explicitly.
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 inventure.design. 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 inventure.design.

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.