Skip to main content

Security report for krpservices.com

Other · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS and Security headers.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website www.krpservices.com appears to be a basic Wix-hosted site with minimal content and no visible business or contact information. The lack of WHOIS data for the domain raises concerns about the legitimacy and ownership transparency. Technically, the site uses standard Wix technologies and includes Sentry for error monitoring but lacks advanced security headers and privacy compliance features. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, along with no contact details, further reduces trustworthiness and compliance posture. Overall, the site demonstrates a low level of digital maturity and security readiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching krpservices.com

This scan found 19 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
69
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
77

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 minimal content and lack of business information, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning or business model of the entity behind the website. No clear target audience, key services, or industry sector is identified. The absence of contact details and trust indicators suggests the site may not be actively maintained for commercial or professional purposes. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries linked to the domain.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak. There are no detected security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or Strict-Transport-Security. SSL is present but the configuration quality is basic. No vulnerability disclosures, incident response contacts, or security policies are found. The missing WHOIS data adds to the risk profile by obscuring domain ownership. The site uses Sentry for error tracking, which is a positive but insufficient for comprehensive security. Overall, the site is vulnerable to common web security risks and lacks compliance with privacy regulations.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available to improve legitimacy.
  2. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information including company emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses to enhance business credibility.
  4. Configure and deploy essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Improve website content quality, SEO, and accessibility to enhance user experience and trust.

Contact details published on the site

Registration number
06365855
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Wix, JavaScript, Sentry
Platforms
Wix.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix hosting and scripts.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses detected.
  4. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  5. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible domain registration issues.
  6. Website content is minimal and lacks business or trust indicators.
  7. No social media or external business-related links found.
  8. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected in the HTML content.
  9. Site uses Sentry for error monitoring but no analytics or marketing tools detected.
  10. No evidence of advertising or affiliate marketing.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, utilizing Wix's hosting and JavaScript libraries. It includes Sentry for error monitoring but lacks other modern frameworks or CMS integrations. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is minimal with missing meta tags and structured data. The site does not include forms or data collection mechanisms. Hosting is provided by Wix, which offers standard infrastructure but the site does not leverage advanced technical features or optimizations.
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 krpservices.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 krpservices.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.