Skip to main content

Security report for lillius.net

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website www.lillius.net appears to be a small-scale site built on the Wix platform, incorporating standard Wix scripts and Google Tag Manager for analytics. However, the site lacks meaningful business content, contact information, and compliance documentation such as privacy or cookie policies. The absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about the domain's legitimacy and trustworthiness. Technically, the site benefits from HTTPS but lacks advanced security headers and comprehensive privacy compliance features. Overall, the site demonstrates a basic technical infrastructure but falls short in business credibility and security maturity.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

1 finding 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

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

Keep watching lillius.net

This scan found 15 issues across 4 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
62
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
Average
77
After the cap
75

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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-related information, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning, business model, or target audience of the entity behind www.lillius.net. The absence of contact details and corporate identifiers suggests the site may be inactive, under development, or not representing a formal business. No partnerships or certifications are evident, limiting insights into operational scale or competitive advantages.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is basic. HTTPS is enabled, which is mandatory, but no additional security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are present. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosures, incident response contacts, or security policies. The lack of WHOIS data further reduces trust. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. Overall, the site requires significant improvements to meet standard security best practices and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS information is accurate and publicly available to improve trust.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility.
  4. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and update them to mitigate vulnerabilities and improve performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

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 scripts and Google Tag Manager integration.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, indicating domain may be unregistered or privacy protected.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact information such as emails, phone numbers, or addresses found.
  5. No security policies or incident response information available.
  6. Website content is minimal and mostly technical scripts and styles; no meaningful business or descriptive content detected.
  7. No forms or data collection fields detected in the provided HTML content.
  8. No social media links or external business-related links found.
  9. No certifications or trust badges visible.
  10. Site uses HTTPS but lacks advanced security headers.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Wix, utilizing Wix's content delivery and JavaScript frameworks. Google Tag Manager is integrated for analytics and tracking. The site is mobile optimized with basic accessibility features but lacks advanced SEO optimizations. Performance is moderate, typical of Wix-hosted sites. No custom backend or advanced frameworks were detected. The site does not contain forms or interactive elements that collect user data. Overall, the technical implementation is standard for a Wix site but lacks enhancements for security, privacy, and SEO.
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 lillius.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 lillius.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.