Skip to main content

Security report for kayak.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The analyzed URL is a CAPTCHA verification page for www.kayak.com, designed to confirm that the visitor is a real user and to mitigate automated bot traffic. The page content is minimal and does not provide any business, contact, or policy information. The technical infrastructure includes Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for bot detection, but no other advanced frameworks or CMS are detectable. The WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable or inaccessible in the provided raw output, which is unusual for a major commercial domain and reduces trustworthiness from a registration perspective. Security posture is limited to bot mitigation with no visible security headers or policies on this page. Overall, the site is protected by a WAF or similar security mechanism, blocking direct content access and limiting analysis capabilities.

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

6 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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching kayak.com

This scan found 15 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
95
Security headers
20
Email security
95
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
75

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 nature of the page as a CAPTCHA challenge, no direct business intelligence can be extracted from this content. The domain www.kayak.com is widely known as a travel search engine and aggregator, but this page does not provide any business model, market positioning, or service details. No contact or partnership information is present. The lack of WHOIS data in the provided raw output is inconsistent with expectations for a large enterprise domain, suggesting privacy protection or data source limitations.

Security posture

The security posture on this page is focused on bot mitigation using Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, which is a strong indicator of proactive security against automated abuse. However, no other security headers or policies are visible, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. The absence of privacy and cookie policies on this page is a compliance gap, though it may be due to the page's limited scope. The WHOIS data unavailability is a concern for domain legitimacy verification. Overall, the security posture is minimal but functional for the page's purpose.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and expose comprehensive privacy and cookie policies accessible from all pages.
  2. Publish clear contact and incident response information for security and abuse reporting.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to improve security posture.
  4. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible or provide verified domain registration information to improve trust.
  5. Consider providing a less restrictive bot challenge experience for legitimate users to improve user experience and SEO.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a CAPTCHA challenge page indicating bot mitigation or WAF protection blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for bot mitigation

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a CAPTCHA challenge page indicating bot mitigation or WAF presence.
  2. No business or contact information is available on this page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present on this page.
  4. The page uses Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise for bot detection.
  5. No WHOIS data could be extracted from the raw WHOIS output provided.
  6. No external links other than Google and CDN assets are present.
  7. No forms other than the CAPTCHA response submission are present.
  8. No social media or contact emails or phone numbers found.
  9. Content is minimal and purely functional for bot verification.
Technical notes

Notes

The page uses modern Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise scripts loaded asynchronously from Google's domains and assets hosted on AWS S3 CDN. The HTML is minimal and functional, with inline CSS for styling. No CMS or backend frameworks are detectable from this page. The page is designed for bot challenge and does not contain typical SEO or accessibility features. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be fully assessed due to the page's limited content. The hosting provider and SSL configuration cannot be determined from the provided data.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 75/100 +4Medium24 findingsView report
  2. 71/100Medium24 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with kayak.com. 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 kayak.com.

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.