Skip to main content

Security report for kitenet.net

Technology · N/a

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

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'kite' hosted at www.kitenet.net appears to be a personal or small community web hosting platform primarily using the ikiwiki CMS. It offers user homepages, a blog, and wiki-style content focused on the 'kite' server and its users. The site is modest in scale, with basic content and navigation, targeting a general audience interested in personal web hosting and community content. The market position is niche and small scale, with no clear commercial business model or revenue streams evident from the content. Technically, the site uses standard HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with ikiwiki, but lacks modern security features such as HTTPS and security headers. The site is accessible without WAF or blocking mechanisms, but the absence of HTTPS and security policies indicates a low security maturity level. The WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness despite the site being active. No contact information, privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, limiting compliance with privacy regulations. Overall, the site is functional but basic, with significant room for improvement in security, compliance, and business credibility.

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 kitenet.net

This scan found 20 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
85
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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

The website serves a small, niche community focused on personal web hosting and wiki/blog content. It does not present as a commercial enterprise but rather as a hobbyist or community project. The lack of business contact details, certifications, or privacy policies suggests limited formal business operations. The external links point to related personal or community sites, reinforcing the non-commercial nature. There is no evidence of partnerships, subsidiaries, or formal market positioning beyond the community. Growth indicators and revenue streams are not apparent. The site’s simplicity and lack of modern features may limit its appeal beyond its current user base.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS, security headers, and privacy policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present. The site does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries, which is positive, but the lack of encryption and security best practices exposes users to risks such as data interception. The missing WHOIS data further complicates trust assessment. Compliance with GDPR or other privacy regulations is not evident. Overall, the site is low risk in terms of sensitive data but lacks proactive security measures and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add standard security headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to improve security posture.
  3. Publish privacy and cookie policies to enhance compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information including email and phone for support and incident response.
  5. Investigate and resolve WHOIS registration inconsistencies to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
A personal or small community website hosting service with a focus on the 'kite' server and its users, showcasing homepages of users and server news.
Key services
personal web hosting, wiki and blog hosting, user homepage hosting
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML, CSS, JavaScript
Frameworks
ikiwiki
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • No visible sensitive data exposure
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal/community hosting site with a simple wiki/blog structure.
  2. No HTTPS detected in provided data; security headers missing.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers found.
  5. No social media or business certifications present.
  6. WHOIS data is missing or domain unregistered, which is suspicious.
  7. Content is safe and family-friendly.
  8. Website uses ikiwiki CMS and basic HTML/CSS/JS stack.
  9. No advertising or tracking detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses ikiwiki CMS with basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. The technical implementation is functional but outdated, lacking modern security and performance optimizations. The site is moderately performant but has basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is minimal with basic meta tags. No advanced analytics or tracking technologies are detected. Hosting provider details are not available. The site would benefit from modernization including HTTPS adoption, improved accessibility, and enhanced SEO practices.
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 kitenet.net. 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 kitenet.net.

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.