Skip to main content

Security report for iworkedon.com

I Worked On · Technology · N/a

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

I Worked On is a small technology-focused platform founded in 2006 that enables individuals, makers, and developers to create and share portfolios showcasing their projects. The website emphasizes a modern approach to professional experience by focusing on tangible work and outcomes rather than traditional resumes. The platform targets users who want an easy and visually appealing way to present their work to the world. Technically, the website uses modern web technologies including HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and Alpine.js for interactivity. It integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking and marketing insights. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices but lacks some accessibility features and security headers. Hosting details are not explicitly stated but the domain is registered with eNom, LLC and uses name-services.com for DNS. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and has domain transfer protections but lacks DNSSEC and important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security. No privacy or cookie policies are published, which is a compliance gap. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The domain is stable and legitimate with a long registration history, supporting trustworthiness. Overall, the website is professional and functional with moderate security posture and limited privacy compliance. Strategic improvements in security headers, privacy policies, and contact transparency would enhance trust and compliance.

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

11 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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';…

  2. 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

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

Keep watching iworkedon.com

This scan found 26 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
42
Security headers
50
Email security
70
DNS health
40
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
35
Average
46

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

I Worked On occupies a niche market segment focused on portfolio creation for makers and developers, differentiating itself from traditional resume platforms by emphasizing project outcomes. Its business model likely revolves around free portfolio hosting with potential for premium features or services. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its simplicity and focus on showcasing real work. The presence of founder testimonials and user portfolios indicates active user engagement. The company appears to operate independently without subsidiaries or parent companies. Growth indicators include a long domain age and active user examples. The partnership ecosystem is minimal with no explicit partners listed. Strategic observations suggest opportunities for expanding compliance and security to build greater market trust.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is moderate. HTTPS is enforced and domain transfer protections are in place, but the absence of DNSSEC and security headers exposes the site to potential DNS spoofing and clickjacking risks. The lack of published privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are evident, which could delay response to security events. The use of third-party scripts like Google Analytics introduces tracking concerns without explicit user consent mechanisms. Overall, the security culture appears informal with room for formalizing policies and controls to reduce risk and improve compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to protect against common web attacks.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  4. Establish and publicize an incident response plan and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve security readiness and transparency.
  5. Increase transparency by providing clear contact information and support channels to build user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
I Worked On
Description
I worked on allows you to build a portfolio of the things you've made to share with the world.
Key services
Portfolio creation, Project showcasing, User profile hosting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Alpine.js, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Frameworks
Alpine.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with full content and no blocking mechanisms.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  4. Uses modern lightweight JavaScript framework Alpine.js.
  5. Includes Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking.
  6. Domain is old and stable, registered with eNom, LLC.
  7. No DNSSEC enabled which is a minor security gap.
  8. No visible security headers in HTML content.
  9. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  10. Content is focused on portfolio building for makers and developers.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern and lightweight technology stack including Alpine.js for frontend interactivity and integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. The HTML and CSS are valid and the site is mobile responsive with good SEO metadata. However, the absence of a CMS or explicit hosting details limits insight into backend infrastructure. Performance is moderate with no evident blocking scripts. Technical debt appears low but security-related technical improvements are needed. Opportunities exist to enhance accessibility and implement progressive web app features given the presence of manifest and icons. Overall, the technical implementation supports the business goals but requires security and compliance modernization.
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 iworkedon.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 iworkedon.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.