Skip to main content

Security report for kavalino.cz

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website at kavalino.cz currently presents no accessible content, with an empty HTML body and no metadata or scripts. The domain WHOIS data indicates a creation date in the future (January 29, 2025), which is inconsistent and suspicious, suggesting the domain may be inactive, placeholder, or under construction. The site uses Cloudflare nameservers, indicating potential use of a CDN or WAF, but no active content or security headers are detected. Overall, the digital maturity is very low with no visible business or security information. The security posture is weak due to lack of HTTPS and absence of security best practices. The risk level is high due to suspicious domain registration data and lack of transparency. Strategic recommendations include establishing valid SSL, publishing privacy and cookie policies, adding contact and business information, and improving technical implementation to build trust and compliance.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

2 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. 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.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching kavalino.cz

This scan found 12 issues across 4 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
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
Average
78
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 business intelligence could be extracted from the website content as it is empty. The domain registration data is inconsistent with a future creation date, which undermines credibility. No market positioning, services, or company details are available. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The business model and target audience cannot be determined.

Security posture

The security posture is currently poor. The absence of HTTPS and security headers exposes the site to risks. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. The domain's suspicious WHOIS data further reduces trust. There is no evidence of GDPR compliance or data protection measures. The site likely relies on Cloudflare for some protection, but no active security controls are visible.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL certificate and enforce HTTPS site-wide.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR.
  3. Add clear contact information and business details to improve credibility.
  4. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Review and correct domain registration information to ensure legitimacy.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. Minimal HTML content with empty body and Cloudflare nameservers indicate possible WAF or security challenge blocking content. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

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 completely empty (empty HTML body).
  2. No metadata, no scripts, no forms, no links detected.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or business details available on the site.
  5. Domain WHOIS data shows future creation date, which is suspicious.
  6. Nameservers point to Cloudflare, suggesting possible WAF or CDN usage.
  7. Likely the site is blocked or under construction with no accessible content.
  8. No security headers or SSL configuration data available.
  9. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website lacks any detectable technology stack or CMS. The hosting appears to be behind Cloudflare, but no scripts or meta tags are present. The site performance and SEO cannot be assessed due to empty content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are poor given the lack of content and structure. The domain WHOIS data is suspicious with a future creation date, indicating possible misconfiguration or placeholder status.
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 kavalino.cz. 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 kavalino.cz.

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.