Skip to main content

Security report for jakdostat.cz

AnFas, spol. s r. o. · Other · Czech Republic

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.jakdostat.cz is dedicated to promoting a specialized book focused on improving collaboration between clients and graphic designers, studios, or agencies. The business behind the site is AnFas, spol. s r. o., a small Czech company. The site provides basic information about the book, ordering options, and a discussion forum, targeting clients seeking to optimize their design partnerships. The market position is niche, with a focus on design collaboration culture and quality improvement. Technically, the website uses an older jQuery version (1.4.2) and integrates Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking. The site lacks modern CMS indicators and does not show evidence of advanced frameworks or hosting details. Performance and mobile optimization are basic, with minimal accessibility features. No forms or interactive inputs are present, reducing attack surface but also limiting user engagement. From a security perspective, the site does not present HTTPS or security headers in the provided data, which lowers its security posture. No privacy or cookie policies are found, indicating poor privacy compliance. The absence of WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about domain legitimacy and registration transparency. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, but the site would benefit from improved security best practices. Overall, the website is functional for its purpose but lacks modern security, privacy, and technical standards. The domain's missing WHOIS data and lack of compliance documentation reduce trustworthiness. Strategic improvements in security headers, HTTPS enforcement, privacy policies, and domain registration transparency are recommended to enhance credibility and user trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

10 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

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

  2. 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

  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 jakdostat.cz

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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
54

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

The business operates in a niche publishing sector focused on design collaboration guidance. Its competitive advantage lies in the author's extensive experience and the specialized content of the book. Revenue is likely generated through book sales and possibly related services such as forums or consulting. The target customers are businesses or individuals seeking to improve their relationships with graphic design providers. The company maintains a modest online presence with limited digital marketing sophistication. Partnerships appear limited to the parent company AnFas, spol. s r. o. Growth indicators are not evident from the site. The business model is straightforward, relying on content sales and community engagement.

Security posture

The current security maturity is low to moderate. The site lacks HTTPS confirmation and security headers, which are critical for protecting user data and preventing common web attacks. No incident response or security policy information is provided, indicating limited preparedness. The use of outdated JavaScript libraries may expose the site to vulnerabilities. Privacy compliance is poor, with no GDPR or cookie consent mechanisms. The absence of contact emails or phone numbers for security or abuse reporting further weakens the security culture. Overall, the site is functional but requires significant improvements to meet modern security and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS across the entire website to secure data transmission.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details and implement a cookie consent mechanism.
  4. Update JavaScript libraries to supported versions to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer support and security incident reporting.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
AnFas, spol. s r. o.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
AnFas, spol. s r. o.
Description
The website promotes a book titled "Jak dostat ze svého grafika/studia/agentury to nejlepší?" authored by Tomáš Kostkan and collaborators, focusing on how to effectively work with graphic designers, studios, or agencies. It aims to improve collaboration culture, quality, and pricing agreements.
Key services
Book sales, Discussion forum, Information about the book
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.4.2, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google Analytics with asynchronous loading
  • No visible forms or inputs to secure

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  4. Company address is present in footer.
  5. Website uses outdated jQuery version (1.4.2).
  6. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for tracking.
  7. No forms or user input fields detected.
  8. No security headers detected in provided data.
  9. WHOIS data is missing, which is a concern for domain legitimacy.
  10. Website content is focused on a niche book about graphic design collaboration.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic HTML with an older version of jQuery (1.4.2), which is outdated and may pose security risks. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are integrated for tracking but no advanced frameworks or CMS platforms are detected. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features, limiting user experience on diverse devices. Performance is moderate but could be improved with modern techniques. The absence of security headers and HTTPS reduces the technical robustness. There is no evidence of modern hosting or cloud infrastructure. Overall, the technical implementation is basic and would benefit from modernization and security hardening.
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 jakdostat.cz. 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 jakdostat.cz.

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.