Skip to main content

Security report for manens.com

Manens S.p.A. · architecture and engineering · Italy

Partial score · DNS & email only

75/100

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

The website demonstrates a generally moderate security posture with no critical vulnerabilities but several areas requiring improvement. The presence of a high-risk exposed FTP service poses a significant threat, potentially allowing unauthorized access or data leakage. Medium-level issues such as missing security headers, lack of DNSSEC, and non-enforcing DMARC policies indicate gaps in defense-in-depth and email security that could be exploited for phishing or man-in-the-middle attacks. Compliance-related analyses for GDPR and NIS2 failed, suggesting potential regulatory risks that could lead to legal and financial penalties. While SSL/TLS configurations are strong, the exposed SSH service and incomplete DNS configurations further increase attack surface risk. Addressing these issues promptly will reduce the likelihood of breaches, enhance customer trust, and ensure regulatory compliance. Overall, the organization should prioritize network service hardening and compliance remediation to strengthen its security posture.

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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • 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

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

Keep watching manens.com

This scan found 5 issues across 3 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
100
Email security
90
DNS health
85
Network security
75
Average
88
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.

Technical notes

Notes

The most critical finding is the exposure of the FTP service classified as high risk; FTP transmits data unencrypted, making it vulnerable to interception and unauthorized access. The medium severity issues include failure to implement essential security headers, which leaves the website susceptible to clickjacking, MIME sniffing, and cross-site scripting attacks. The DMARC policy is configured but not enforcing, allowing malicious actors to spoof legitimate email domains. DNSSEC is not enabled, exposing DNS queries to manipulation or cache poisoning attacks. Additionally, the lack of CAA records, although low risk, reduces control over which certificate authorities can issue SSL certificates for the domain. The exposed SSH service, if not properly secured with strong authentication and limited access, presents a potential entry point for attackers. Finally, failing GDPR and NIS2 analyses highlight non-compliance risks with privacy and security regulations, which could lead to significant legal and financial consequences.
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 manens.com. 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 manens.com.

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.