Skip to main content

Security report for locationexplorer.de

Other · N/a

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

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website at locationexplorer.de is currently inaccessible, returning a 404 error page with minimal HTML content and no visible business or service information. The lack of metadata, structured data, or any contact details indicates the site is either under development or abandoned. The domain's WHOIS data shows generic name servers without registrant details, limiting trust and legitimacy assessment. Technically, the site uses Next.js and React frameworks but does not serve any meaningful content or SEO metadata. Security posture is poor due to absence of HTTPS enforcement, security headers, or privacy policies. Overall, the site does not provide any business or compliance information, resulting in a very low trust and credibility score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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 locationexplorer.de

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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
20
Email security
60
DNS health
60
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
25
Average
46

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

No business intelligence can be derived from the website content as it is a 404 error page with no company name, description, services, or contact information. The domain appears registered but lacks any visible market positioning, target audience, or operational indicators. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable. The absence of business data precludes any meaningful analysis of business model or competitive advantages.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal to non-existent. The site lacks HTTPS enforcement and security headers, exposing it to potential risks. No forms or input fields are present to assess secure data handling. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The WHOIS data does not provide registrant transparency, which further reduces trust. Overall, the site is not compliant with basic security or privacy best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Deploy a functional website with meaningful content and metadata to improve trust and SEO.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL/TLS certificates to secure user connections.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  5. Provide clear contact information and business details to enhance credibility and support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

None detected. Website returns a 404 error page with minimal content and no actual business content available. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Next.js, JavaScript
Frameworks
React, Next.js
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible, showing a 404 error page
  2. No metadata, Open Graph, or structured data found
  3. No forms, no contact information, no external links
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected
  5. No security headers or SSL information available
  6. WHOIS data is minimal with generic name servers
  7. No business or branding information present
  8. No analytics or advertising scripts detected
  9. No social media or email contacts found
  10. Site likely under development or abandoned
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Next.js and React frameworks, indicating a modern JavaScript stack. However, the site currently serves only a 404 error page with no content, metadata, or SEO optimization. No CMS or hosting provider information is detectable. Performance and accessibility cannot be properly assessed due to lack of content. The absence of analytics or advertising scripts suggests no active marketing or tracking. Technical debt is likely high as the site is non-functional, requiring full development and deployment.
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 locationexplorer.de. 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 locationexplorer.de.

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.