Security report for madebyhangar.com
Hangar · Technology · Malta
High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.
Hangar is a Malta-based branding and design studio specializing in creating humanly relatable brands and products for startups and scaleups in technology sectors such as fintech, health tech, edtech, AI, VR, and blockchain. The company positions itself as a trusted partner for ambitious entrepreneurs, supported by notable venture capital firms. Their key services include brand identities, web design and development, and product and UX design. The website demonstrates a professional and consistent brand presence with a strong portfolio and client testimonials. Technically, the website uses Craft CMS and integrates modern technologies such as Google Tag Manager and Vimeo Player API for analytics and media delivery. The site is mobile optimized with good SEO practices and moderate performance. However, some accessibility features could be improved. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and implements CSRF protection via cookies. It also provides a cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR principles. However, it lacks visible security headers, a published security policy, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professional but would benefit from enhanced security policies and privacy documentation to improve compliance and user trust.
Scanned
NIS2 and GDPR posture
- GDPR outside view
- 40/ 100 · High
- Checks completed
- 7of 7
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
- (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
- (b) Incident handling: One indicator
- (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
- (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
- (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
- (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
- (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
- (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
- (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
- (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.
GDPR outside view
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
- Critical
No HTTPS encryption
GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data
What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS
- CWE-319
- OWASP A04:2025
- ASVS V12.2.1
- NIS2 21(2)(h)
- IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
- GDPR Art. 32(1)(a)
- NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
- 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
- GDPR Art. 12
- GDPR Art. 13
- NIST PT-5: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-5: Privacy Notice
- High
Third-party services without privacy policy
Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy
- Critical
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.
- Critical
No HTTPS Encryption
Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception
What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS
- CWE-319
- OWASP A04:2025
- ASVS V12.2.1
- NIS2 21(2)(h)
- IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
- GDPR Art. 32(1)(a)
- NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
- Critical
Network security
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
- Critical
Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
- NIS2 21(2)(e)
- IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
- NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
- NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP
Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
- NIS2 21(2)(e)
- IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
- NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
- NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
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
- RFC 6797 §6.1.1
- Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: hsts_min_age 63072000
- NIS2 21(2)(h)
- IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
- NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
- High
Missing X-Frame-Options header
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
- CWE-1021
- OWASP A06:2025
- CAPEC-103
- ASVS V3.4.6
- OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
- RFC 7034
- 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';…
- High
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
Keep watching madebyhangar.com
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. 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
- 0
- Security headers
- 20
- Email security
- 70
- DNS health
- 75
- Network security
- 0
- GDPR outside view
- 40
- Average
- 34
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 · found on this site
- 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
Security posture
Recommendations
- Implement standard security headers including Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
- Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to improve legal compliance and user trust.
- Develop and display a security policy and incident response information to demonstrate preparedness and transparency.
- Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.
- Enhance accessibility features to improve usability for all users and comply with accessibility standards.
Contact details published on the site
- Addresses
- Legal name
- Hangar
Site observations
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Business
- Company
- Hangar
- Description
- We make brands humanly relatable. We design and build brands and products for startups and scaleups in fintech, health tech, edtech, AI, VR and blockchain.
- Key services
- Brand Identities, Web Design & Development, Product & UX
- Content quality
- excellent
- Branding
- consistent
Technology
- Stack
- JavaScript, Vimeo Player API, Google Tag Manager
- Performance
- moderate
- Mobile
- good
- Accessibility
- basic
- SEO
- good
Security
- Observed score
- 70/100
- Good practices seen
- CSRF token cookie used
- Cookie consent mechanism implemented
Analytics and tracking
- Services
- Google Tag Manager
- Tracking level
- moderate
- Privacy practices
- basic
Advertising
- Transparency
- basic
Site quality
- Design
- excellent
- User experience
- good
- Content relevance
- excellent
- Navigation
- good
- Professionalism
- excellent
- Trustworthiness
- high
Key observations
- Website is professionally designed and content rich
- Strong branding and consistent messaging
- Cookie consent implemented with detailed cookie categories
- No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found
- Contact information is clearly provided including email, phone, and physical address
- Use of modern tracking and video embedding technologies
- No visible security headers or explicit security policies
- No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information available
Technical notes
Notes
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.
- MITRE CWE (opens in a new tab)4.20 (2026-04-30) · CWE Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- MITRE CAPEC (opens in a new tab)3.9 (2023-01-24) · CAPEC Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
- Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
- Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
- NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
- NIST NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens in a new tab)live records · Public domain (NVD); CVE® records © MITRE, free use
- W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
- ETSI EN 301 549 (opens in a new tab)V3.2.1 (2021-03), clause headings · Clause numbers and titles only (© ETSI)
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Retrieved 2026-10-25
Feedback on this report
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with madebyhangar.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review madebyhangar.com.