Skip to main content

Security report for jupiter.shop

E-commerce · N/a

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Jupiter is an e-commerce platform that aggregates multiple food and recipe stores, providing a centralized location for consumers interested in cooking and recipes. The platform hosts various branded stores and recipe collections, serving a niche market of food enthusiasts. Technically, the website is built using modern frameworks such as React and Next.js, with assets hosted on Amazon S3 and analytics implemented via Google Analytics and PostHog. The site is HTTPS secured and performs moderately well with good mobile optimization. However, it lacks visible security headers and privacy compliance documentation, which are critical for user trust and regulatory adherence. No contact information or security incident response details are provided, limiting transparency. Overall, the platform appears legitimate but would benefit from enhanced security and privacy practices.

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

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 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching jupiter.shop

This scan found 24 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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
60
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
61

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

Jupiter operates as a marketplace or aggregator for food-related content creators and stores, targeting consumers interested in recipes and cooking. Its business model revolves around hosting multiple branded stores and recipe sites, leveraging advertising networks such as Mediavine and Raptive for monetization. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its curated collection of niche food brands and recipe providers. The presence of Instagram handles for each store suggests a strong social media integration strategy. Growth potential exists through expanding partnerships and improving user engagement. However, the lack of explicit business and contact information may hinder trust and scalability.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a basic to moderate security posture with HTTPS enabled and no visible exposed sensitive data. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces its defense-in-depth capabilities. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are found, indicating limited preparedness for security incidents. The use of third-party analytics and advertising scripts introduces potential privacy risks, especially without clear cookie consent mechanisms. Compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations appears minimal. Enhancing security policies, implementing security headers, and providing transparency on data protection would significantly improve the security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to strengthen security defenses.
  3. Provide clear contact information including support and security incident response channels to improve transparency and responsiveness.
  4. Conduct regular security audits of third-party scripts and dependencies to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Develop a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting and improve security culture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Jupiter is a platform hosting multiple stores and recipe sites primarily focused on food, cooking, and recipes. It aggregates various branded stores and recipe collections such as Alternative Dish, Phil Hates Gluten, Maple Kitchen Official, and others. The platform appears to serve as a marketplace or directory for food-related content creators and stores.
Key services
Hosting and showcasing multiple food and recipe stores, Providing links to individual branded stores and recipe collections
Content quality
good
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, PostHog
Frameworks
React, Next.js
Platforms
Jupiter platform (custom or proprietary)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, PostHog
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Mediavine, Raptive
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, PostHog
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site
  2. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found
  3. Multiple external recipe and store links hosted on subdomains of jupiter.shop
  4. Use of modern JavaScript frameworks and analytics tools
  5. No visible security headers detected in the HTML content
  6. Advertising networks Mediavine and Raptive are used
  7. Tracking includes Facebook Pixel, Google Analytics, and PostHog
  8. Site is HTTPS secured with no visible SSL issues
  9. No signs of adult or questionable content
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack featuring React and Next.js, enabling server-side rendering and improved performance. Assets are hosted on Amazon S3, ensuring reliable content delivery. Analytics are implemented using Google Analytics and PostHog, with Google Tag Manager facilitating tag management. The site is mobile optimized and features a clean, user-friendly design. However, the lack of a CMS suggests content updates may be manual or custom. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in SEO and accessibility. The absence of security headers and privacy compliance documentation indicates technical debt in security and regulatory adherence. Addressing these gaps will reduce risk and improve operational resilience.
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 jupiter.shop. 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 jupiter.shop.

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.