Skip to main content

Security report for making-space.org

making-space.org · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

making-space.org is a minimal placeholder website hosted on WordPress.com and registered through Automattic Inc. The site currently displays a simple message indicating that something new is coming, with no substantive business content or services described. The technical infrastructure relies on WordPress CMS with Jetpack and Gutenberg plugins, hosted on Automattic's platform, providing basic analytics and social sharing capabilities. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection, but lacks DNSSEC and security headers. Privacy and compliance policies are absent, and no contact or business information is provided, limiting trust and credibility. Overall, the site appears to be in early development or a holding page with limited digital maturity.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

7 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  3. 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.

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

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

Keep watching making-space.org

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
52
Security headers
30
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
64

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

The website does not disclose any detailed business information, legal entity data, or contact details. The domain was registered in 2020, consistent with a new or developing project. There is no indication of market positioning, revenue streams, or target customer segments. The lack of content and policies suggests the business is either not yet operational or intentionally minimal. The use of WordPress.com hosting and Automattic as registrar indicates reliance on established platforms but no unique business partnerships or subsidiaries are evident.

Security posture

Security measures include HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and domain status clientTransferProhibited to prevent unauthorized domain transfers. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no HTTP security headers are present in the HTML content, which could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. There is no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, and no privacy or cookie policies to indicate compliance with GDPR or other regulations. The site does not collect user data via forms, reducing immediate risk but also limiting engagement capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain name system security.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish privacy and cookie policies to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  4. Add clear contact information and incident response channels to enhance transparency.
  5. Develop substantive website content to improve business credibility and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
making-space.org
Description
Something new is coming.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Jetpack, Gutenberg, Twemoji
Platforms
WordPress.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
WordPress.com Stats
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
wordpress.com pixel
Marketing tools
Jetpack
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a minimal placeholder with no substantive content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses provided.
  4. Uses WordPress.com hosting and Jetpack plugin for analytics and sharing.
  5. No security headers detected in HTML content.
  6. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information present.
  7. No business or legal information disclosed.
  8. No social media links or external business-related links found.
  9. Website is accessible with no WAF or blocking mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with Jetpack and Gutenberg plugins, hosted on Automattic's WordPress.com platform. The site loads moderate CSS and JavaScript resources, including emoji support and remote login scripts. Performance is moderate with no evident optimization for mobile beyond basic viewport settings. Accessibility and SEO optimizations are minimal, with no structured data or JSON-LD present. The site lacks advanced technical frameworks or custom development, indicating a simple, template-based setup. There is opportunity for modernization and improved technical implementation to support future growth.
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 making-space.org. 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 making-space.org.

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.