Skip to main content

Security report for kprkr.co

Kieran Parker · Technology · United Kingdom

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

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

KPRKR is the personal website of Kieran Parker, a seasoned Product Designer specializing in early-stage startup product development. The site highlights his experience, client portfolio, and unique business model offering equity or revenue share partnerships. Technically, the site is built on modern frameworks such as Next.js and Sanity.io, delivering a responsive and well-structured user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced, but lacks advanced security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies. The WHOIS data is fully redacted, typical for personal domains, and does not raise immediate trust concerns given the professional presentation. Overall, the site serves as a credible portfolio and contact point for potential clients.

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 kprkr.co

This scan found 25 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
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
63

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 business targets early-stage startups and founders seeking product design expertise with a flexible partnership model. The niche focus on 0 to 1 product launches and equity-based arrangements differentiates the offering. The client list includes reputable organizations, enhancing credibility. The partnership with Monolif studio suggests a collaborative ecosystem. Revenue likely derives from consulting fees and equity stakes. The site’s minimalistic design and lack of extensive marketing tools indicate a boutique consultancy approach.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications. However, it lacks key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could mitigate certain web attacks. No forms or input fields reduce attack surface, but absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates compliance gaps. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, limiting transparency. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with standard best practices and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Create a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure page to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Include incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with accessibility standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Kieran Parker
Description
Kieran Parker is a Product Designer with over a decade of experience working with early-stage startups, focusing on early company and product development, partnering with founders to launch products. He offers partnerships based on equity or revenue share and has worked with clients including Mastercard, The Bank of London, NHS, and others.
Key services
Product design, Startup consulting, Equity/revenue share partnerships
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Next.js, React, Sanity.io (CMS), WOFF2 fonts
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal portfolio/business site for a product designer.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. Contact is primarily via email and Twitter link.
  4. No phone numbers or physical addresses provided.
  5. No forms detected on the site.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information present.
  7. Modern web technologies used with good SEO and mobile optimization.
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  9. WHOIS data is fully redacted, limiting domain registration insights.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Next.js and React, leveraging Sanity.io as a headless CMS. It uses modern web fonts (WOFF2) and is optimized for mobile devices with responsive design. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with deferred loading of scripts. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking. The site does not use a traditional CMS like WordPress, reducing common CMS-related vulnerabilities. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. Overall, the technical implementation is modern and clean but could benefit from 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 kprkr.co. 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 kprkr.co.

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.