Skip to main content

Security report for jeromemettling.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website jeromemettling.com currently presents a security challenge page that blocks direct access to its content, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism. The visible content is minimal and primarily technical, showing a redirect countdown and browser integrity checks. The site appears to be running very outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are known to have multiple security vulnerabilities. The WHOIS data is suspicious, showing a domain creation date in the future (2025), no registrant information, and no DNSSEC enabled, which raises concerns about the domain's legitimacy. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or business information is available on the site. Overall, the site lacks professional content and trust indicators, and the security posture is weak due to outdated software and missing security headers.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 jeromemettling.com

This scan found 22 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. 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
75
Security headers
20
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
63

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

Due to the lack of accessible content and business information, it is not possible to determine the company's market positioning, business model, or target audience. The site does not provide any contact details, certifications, or trust signals that would indicate a legitimate or established business presence. The presence of a BitNinja.IO security check suggests some level of security awareness, but the outdated CMS and suspicious WHOIS data undermine credibility. No partnerships or related domains were identified.

Security posture

The security posture is weak. The site uses outdated CMS platforms with known vulnerabilities and lacks DNSSEC. No security headers are detected, and HTTPS enforcement is not verifiable from the content. The presence of a WAF or security challenge page indicates some protective measures, but the overall security hygiene is poor. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The suspicious WHOIS data further reduces trust in the domain's legitimacy.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade all CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Enable DNSSEC and implement proper domain security measures to improve domain trustworthiness.
  3. Implement HTTPS with HSTS and add comprehensive security headers to protect users.
  4. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and transparency.
  5. Provide verifiable contact information and business details to enhance credibility and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page shows a security challenge with automatic redirect and browser integrity check, typical of WAF or security protection layers. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
Joomla!
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5, JavaScript
Frameworks
Joomla, WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited set
  • Use of Cloudflare DNS servers

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 content is blocked behind a security challenge page.
  2. No meaningful business or contact information available on the site.
  3. CMS versions are outdated and potentially vulnerable.
  4. WHOIS data is inconsistent and suspicious.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  6. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links detected.
  7. Page includes a security check powered by BitNinja.IO.
  8. No SEO or accessibility best practices observed.
  9. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  10. No advertising or marketing tools detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS versions Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, both of which are outdated and unsupported, posing significant security risks. The hosting DNS is managed via Cloudflare, but DNSSEC is not enabled. The HTML content is minimal and serves as a security challenge page with JavaScript-based redirect and browser integrity checks. No modern analytics, tracking, or marketing tools are detected. The site shows poor SEO and accessibility practices, with meta tags indicating old CMS generators and no structured data or Open Graph tags. Performance is moderate but limited by the security challenge page. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic at best.
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 jeromemettling.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 jeromemettling.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.