Skip to main content

Security report for kluzistelesna.cz

Media · Czech Republic

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Kluzistelesna.cz is a small media website specializing in sports betting analysis, primarily focused on soccer and football. The site publishes regular articles authored by a consistent author, providing betting tips, strategy guides, and insights for sports bettors. The business appears to be newly established in 2024, with domain registration consistent with this timeline. The target audience is sports enthusiasts and bettors seeking analytical content to improve their betting strategies. Technically, the website is built on WordPress, uses Cloudflare DNS services, and includes common web technologies such as jQuery and Font Awesome. The site is mobile optimized and has a good design and navigation structure, though accessibility features are basic. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and formal security policies. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy page present but no cookie consent mechanism or GDPR compliance indicators. Contact information is limited to a contact form without direct emails or phone numbers. Overall, the website is functional, professional, and safe for general audiences interested in betting analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

  2. 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

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching kluzistelesna.cz

This scan found 27 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
56

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 operates in the niche media sector focused on sports betting analysis, providing content that caters to a specialized audience of sports bettors. Its business model is content publishing without visible monetization through ads or affiliate programs. The site maintains a consistent brand and content quality, authored by a single author, indicating a focused editorial approach. The lack of direct contact details and certifications suggests a small-scale operation. The use of Cloudflare and WordPress is typical for small to medium websites. There are no visible partnerships or subsidiaries. The site’s growth potential depends on expanding content, improving privacy compliance, and enhancing security posture to build trust with users.

Security posture

The website has a basic security posture with HTTPS enabled and Cloudflare DNS usage, which provides some protection and performance benefits. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces its defense against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies are published, limiting transparency in security management. The site does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries visibly. Forms are minimal and appear secure but lack advanced protections like CAPTCHA or input validation indicators. Privacy compliance is incomplete, lacking cookie consent mechanisms and GDPR indicators. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small media site but requires improvements to meet higher standards and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve privacy compliance and user transparency.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to build trust and readiness.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and provide direct contact information such as verified company emails or phone numbers.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
A website focused on betting analysis, providing articles and insights related to sports betting strategies, tips, and evaluations.
Key services
Betting analysis articles, Betting tips and strategies
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Font Awesome, Google Fonts, WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Cloudflare DNS

Analytics and tracking

Services
Ackee
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Ackee (analytics.cloudrock.io)
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based media site focused on betting analysis.
  2. Content is well structured with multiple recent articles authored by the same author.
  3. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found; contact is via form only.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie consent mechanisms detected despite presence of privacy and terms pages.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy found.
  6. No social media links or company registration details visible.
  7. Site uses HTTPS and Cloudflare DNS but lacks advanced security headers.
  8. Tracking via Ackee analytics is present but no major ad networks or affiliate links detected.
  9. Content is safe and targeted at general audience interested in sports betting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 5.9.1 with standard plugins and themes, using jQuery and Font Awesome for UI components. It leverages Cloudflare for DNS and likely CDN services, improving performance and security. The site loads CSS and JS assets efficiently, though no advanced frameworks or modern JavaScript libraries are detected. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO basics are covered with meta tags and structured navigation. However, accessibility is basic and could be improved. No broken links or errors were detected in the HTML content. The site uses a custom search form that redirects to Google with site-restricted queries. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid for a small content site but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
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 kluzistelesna.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 kluzistelesna.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.