Skip to main content

Security report for karatage.io

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website karatage.io presents a minimalistic front-end built using modern JavaScript frameworks such as Vue.js and Vuetify, indicating a contemporary technical infrastructure. However, the site lacks substantive business content, contact information, and legal policies, which limits its transparency and trustworthiness. The WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, suggesting privacy protection or data withholding, which further reduces confidence in the domain's legitimacy. Security posture is minimal with no detected security headers or privacy compliance mechanisms. Overall, the site appears to be in an early or placeholder stage with limited business maturity and digital presence.

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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching karatage.io

This scan found 23 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
30
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
66

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 absence of business descriptions, contact details, or structured data, it is difficult to ascertain the company's market position, business model, or target audience. The site does not disclose any certifications, partnerships, or industry affiliations. The lack of privacy and cookie policies, as well as contact information, suggests limited operational maturity and customer engagement. No analytics or marketing tools are detected, indicating minimal tracking or user behavior analysis.

Security posture

The website lacks visible security best practices such as HTTPS enforcement details, security headers, or vulnerability disclosures. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or security contact information is provided. The WHOIS data is not publicly available, which may be a privacy measure but also reduces transparency. Overall, the security posture is weak and requires significant improvements to meet standard compliance and trust requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and verify strong TLS configuration.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR.
  3. Publish clear contact information including business emails and phone numbers for customer and security inquiries.
  4. Introduce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities and improve incident response readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Vuetify, Vue.js, Google Fonts, Material Design Icons, JavaScript
Frameworks
Vue.js, Vuetify
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
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is not publicly available or malformed, indicating privacy protection or data unavailability.
  2. Website uses modern frontend frameworks (Vue.js, Vuetify) but lacks substantive content and business info.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links detected.
  5. No security headers or explicit SSL/TLS info available from provided data.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  7. Website design is basic with some branding consistency but limited content.
  8. No signs of adult or questionable content; content is safe for general audiences.
  9. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; site is accessible.
  10. Overall, the site appears to be a minimal or placeholder site with limited business transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Vue.js and Vuetify frameworks, leveraging Google Fonts and Material Design Icons for UI styling. The site appears to be a single-page application with modern front-end technologies but lacks backend or CMS indicators. Performance is moderate with no explicit optimization or analytics scripts detected. Mobile responsiveness is good due to Vuetify's responsive design capabilities. SEO optimization is basic with minimal meta descriptions and no structured data found. Accessibility features are minimal and could be enhanced.
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 karatage.io. 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 karatage.io.

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.