Skip to main content

Security report for ivocado.com

404 Not Found · Other · N/a

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

31/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website ivocado.com currently serves only a 404 Not Found error page with no accessible content, metadata, or business information. The domain is registered and DNS records are configured, but there is no SSL certificate installed, resulting in no HTTPS support. The site performance is slow with minimal resources loaded. There are no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies present, nor any contact or security-related information. Overall, the website lacks any meaningful content or digital maturity, indicating it is either inactive or improperly configured. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS and security headers represents a critical vulnerability. The lack of any security policies or incident response information further indicates a low security posture. No WAF or blocking mechanisms are detected, and the site is accessible but only returns an error page. Given these factors, the overall risk is high due to poor security hygiene and lack of operational content. Strategic recommendations include immediate SSL implementation, content deployment, and security hardening to establish trust and compliance. Without these improvements, the site remains non-functional and untrustworthy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 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

9 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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 ivocado.com

This scan found 19 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
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
15
Average
31

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

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 ivocado.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for ivocado.com 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 business intelligence data is available from the website content or metadata. The domain registration is consistent but provides no registrant details or business information. There are no indications of market positioning, business model, revenue streams, or partnerships. The lack of content and contact information suggests the website is not currently operational or serving customers.

Security posture

The security posture is poor due to the absence of HTTPS, lack of security headers, and no evidence of security policies or incident response readiness. No vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed or POODLE are detected, but the lack of SSL is a critical issue. DNSSEC and CAA are not enabled, reducing DNS security. The site does not implement HSTS or OCSP stapling. Overall, the site is vulnerable to interception and lacks basic security best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure communications.
  2. Deploy meaningful website content including privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Enable DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance DNS security.
  5. Establish incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms to improve security posture and transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on a server associated with dcpserver.de as indicated by DNS MX records. The site resolves to a single IPv4 address with no IPv6 support. No CMS or frameworks are detected, and no scripts or external resources are loaded beyond a minimal HTML error page. Performance is slow relative to the minimal content, likely due to server response time. The lack of SSL and security headers indicates technical debt and poor infrastructure configuration. There is an opportunity to modernize the stack, improve hosting, and implement standard web technologies and security controls.
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 ivocado.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 ivocado.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.