Skip to main content

Security report for limbo.works

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'Limbo' at www.limbo.works presents a modern, visually oriented design built on contemporary JavaScript frameworks such as Vue.js and Nuxt.js. It integrates analytics tools including Google Analytics and Matomo, indicating a focus on user behavior tracking and performance monitoring. However, the site lacks substantive textual content describing the business, its services, or its market positioning, limiting clarity on its business model and target audience. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies further reduces transparency and compliance posture. From a technical perspective, the site shows moderate performance and good mobile optimization but lacks accessibility features and SEO optimization beyond basic levels. Security posture is weak due to missing security headers and unknown SSL configuration, and no contact or incident response information is provided. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness. Overall, the site appears functional but lacks critical compliance and security elements necessary for higher trust and credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

4 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  3. 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching limbo.works

This scan found 22 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
65
Security headers
30
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
70

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 minimal business-related content and lack of structured data, the business intelligence is limited. The site appears to be a technology or design-oriented entity, possibly a creative agency or digital studio, but no explicit company name, description, or sector is provided. The absence of contact details and policies suggests a small or early-stage operation with limited public-facing business information. The use of advanced web technologies and analytics tools indicates some digital maturity. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The business model and revenue streams remain unclear, and no trust indicators such as certifications or testimonials are present.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is currently weak. There is no evidence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or Strict-Transport-Security, which are essential for protecting against common web attacks. SSL/TLS configuration could not be verified from the data provided. No forms or input fields were detected, reducing immediate risk of injection attacks, but also indicating limited user interaction. The lack of privacy and cookie policies, as well as incident response contacts, suggests compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. WHOIS data is missing, which is a negative trust factor. Overall, the site requires significant improvements in security best practices and compliance documentation to reduce risk and enhance trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance security posture.
  3. Ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced with strong SSL/TLS settings.
  4. Publish clear contact information including business emails and phone numbers, and provide incident response contacts for security issues.
  5. Obtain and display relevant business certifications or trust indicators to improve credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Lottie, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Matomo
Frameworks
Vue.js, Nuxt.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain trust verification.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses detected.
  5. Website uses modern JavaScript frameworks (Vue.js, Nuxt.js) and tracking tools (Google Analytics, Matomo).
  6. No security headers detected in the provided data; SSL status unknown.
  7. No forms detected in the provided HTML content.
  8. External links mainly to analytics and tag management services.
  9. Content is minimal in textual description; mostly design and layout code.
  10. No social media links or business certifications found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern JavaScript frameworks Vue.js and Nuxt.js, which support server-side rendering and progressive web app features. It uses Lottie for animations and integrates Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, and Matomo for analytics and tracking. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. No CMS or hosting provider information was detected. The HTML is valid and well-structured but content is minimal and mostly design-focused. There is no evidence of forms or user data collection beyond analytics scripts. Technical risks include missing security headers and unknown SSL configuration, which should be addressed to prevent vulnerabilities and improve compliance.
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 limbo.works. 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 limbo.works.

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.