Skip to main content

Security report for jorphyy.store

Other · N/a

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website ww1.jorphyy.store is a parked domain with minimal content primarily consisting of advertising blocks and related search iframes. There is no clear business description, contact information, or services offered, indicating it is not an active commercial site. The technical infrastructure relies on basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with integration of Google Adsense and Bodis domain parking scripts. The site lacks HTTPS, security headers, and privacy compliance mechanisms, which significantly lowers its security posture. Overall, the site appears to be a placeholder or monetization page rather than a legitimate business website.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 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

8 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. 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. 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

  4. 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"

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

Keep watching jorphyy.store

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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
47

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

No identifiable business entity or market positioning is evident from the website content. The domain uses privacy-protected WHOIS data, which is not justified by any legitimate business presence. The site’s business model appears to be domain parking and advertising revenue generation. There are no signs of partnerships, subsidiaries, or professional branding. The lack of contact details and business information suggests low credibility and no active customer engagement.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS, lack of security headers, and no visible security policies or incident response information. The site exposes visitors to potential risks such as man-in-the-middle attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or data protection officer information is provided. The use of third-party advertising scripts without visible controls may introduce additional risks. Overall, the site does not follow best security practices and poses a low trust risk.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add essential security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Provide clear business contact information and improve transparency.
  4. Establish and display privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms.
  5. Remove privacy protection from WHOIS if a legitimate business is operating or provide justification.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a parked domain or placeholder page with minimal content, primarily showing ads and related search iframes. No clear business description or services are provided.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google Adsense, Bodis domain parking scripts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Adsense, Bodis
Tracking pixels
Google Adsense cookie.js
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is a parked domain with minimal content
  2. No business or contact information provided
  3. No HTTPS, no security headers
  4. Contains advertising scripts from Google Adsense and Bodis
  5. Privacy and legal pages exist but are minimal and generic
  6. No forms or user input fields detected
  7. No social media or contact emails found
  8. No structured data or Open Graph metadata present
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple technology stack with no modern frameworks or CMS detected. Performance is moderate but limited by the lack of optimization and minimal content. Mobile optimization is basic, and accessibility features are lacking. SEO is poor due to missing meta tags and structured data. The site relies heavily on third-party advertising scripts from Google and Bodis, which may impact loading times and user experience. There is significant technical debt and modernization opportunities to improve professionalism and security.
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 jorphyy.store. 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 jorphyy.store.

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.