Skip to main content

Security report for jordane.day

Education · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

jordane.day is a personal website belonging to Jordan Day, a computer science student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The site serves as a portfolio and blog showcasing personal interests, academic background, and upcoming internship at Amazon. It targets a general audience interested in software development, cybersecurity, and academic pursuits. The website is simple, static, and primarily informational without commercial or business operations. Technically, the site uses basic HTML and CSS with a web font loaded from a CDN. There is no evidence of a CMS or advanced frameworks. The site is mobile responsive and has clear navigation but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Security posture is minimal with no detected security headers or policies, and no HTTPS status was provided. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, and no contact information is available, limiting trust and compliance. The domain uses privacy protection in WHOIS, which is typical for personal sites. Overall, the site is safe, professional, and suitable for its purpose but could improve security and privacy compliance.

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

9 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 jordane.day

This scan found 27 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
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
57

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 website represents an individual rather than a commercial entity, focusing on personal branding and academic presence. There is no business model or revenue stream. The target audience includes peers, potential employers, and academic collaborators. The site is part of a small ecosystem including links to peers and a UMass Webring. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The lack of business information and contact details limits credibility from a commercial perspective. Growth indicators are not applicable. The site is consistent with a student portfolio and personal blog.

Security posture

The security maturity level is low, with no visible security headers or HTTPS confirmation. There are no policies or incident response contacts published. No vulnerability disclosures or security.txt files are present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No analytics or tracking scripts reduce privacy risks but also limit insights. The site does not expose sensitive data or show signs of vulnerabilities. Overall, the security posture is minimal but adequate for a personal site with low risk.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTPS to secure all communications and improve trust.
  2. Add a privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to comply with privacy regulations.
  3. Implement basic security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Provide contact information or a dedicated security contact for incident reporting.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Personal website of Jordan Day, a student at University of Massachusetts Amherst majoring in computer science and minoring in linguistics. The site shares personal interests, academic background, and internship information.
Key services
Personal portfolio, Blog, Project showcase
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, Hack Font (via CDN)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal portfolio and blog for a university student.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers provided.
  4. No security policies or incident response information available.
  5. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  6. Simple tech stack with static HTML and CSS, no CMS detected.
  7. No security headers or advanced security configurations observed.
  8. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  10. WHOIS data is privacy protected, typical for personal domains.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with static HTML and CSS, using a web font loaded from a CDN. There is no CMS or JavaScript framework detected. The site is mobile responsive and has a clear navigation structure. Performance is likely moderate given the simple design and minimal external resources. SEO is basic with a single title tag and meta viewport tag but no Open Graph or structured data. Accessibility is basic with alt attributes on images but no ARIA roles or landmarks. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not provided. The site could benefit from modernization with improved SEO, accessibility, and security features.
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 jordane.day. 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 jordane.day.

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.