Skip to main content

Security report for martinkrejcir.cz

Other · Czech Republic

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website martinkrejcir.cz is currently inaccessible beyond a security verification page that employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. This page contains minimal content limited to a loading spinner and a message indicating a bot check is in progress. No business-related content, contact information, or policies are accessible, which severely limits the ability to assess the company's operations or services. The domain is registered since 2016 with a Czech registrar, indicating some longevity, but the lack of accessible content reduces trust and transparency. Technically, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA for bot mitigation. External resources are loaded from reputable CDNs and Google domains. However, no security headers or advanced configurations are visible, and HTTPS enforcement cannot be confirmed from the provided data. The site shows basic mobile optimization but lacks SEO and accessibility features. From a security perspective, the use of reCAPTCHA is a positive control against automated abuse, but the absence of visible security headers and policies is a concern. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no contact or incident response information is available. The domain registration data is consistent and legitimate, but the overall security posture and privacy compliance are weak due to the lack of accessible information. Overall, the site appears to be protected by a generic security verification mechanism that blocks content access, resulting in a low AI score and limited insights. Strategic recommendations include improving transparency by publishing privacy and cookie policies, enhancing security headers, enabling HTTPS, and providing clear contact and business information to build trust.

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

7 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

    • 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

  2. 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 martinkrejcir.cz

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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
63

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention martinkrejcir.cz, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for martinkrejcir.cz right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

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 the content being blocked by a security verification page, no direct business intelligence can be extracted. The domain registration data suggests a small entity based in the Czech Republic with a domain age of approximately 7+ years. No information about market positioning, business model, revenue streams, or partnerships is available. The lack of accessible content and contact details limits the ability to analyze competitive advantages or growth indicators.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 to mitigate automated access, which is a positive security control. However, no other security headers or policies are visible, and HTTPS enforcement cannot be confirmed. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates a low maturity level in security and compliance. The site is effectively locked behind a bot challenge, which restricts content access but also limits transparency and user trust. There are no visible vulnerabilities in the HTML content, but the lack of comprehensive security practices and policies is a concern.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance security posture.
  4. Provide clear contact information including business email and phone numbers to improve credibility and support.
  5. Develop an incident response plan and publish relevant contact channels (e.g., security@ or abuse@ emails) for vulnerability reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google reCAPTCHA v3 with a loading spinner and no actual business content accessible. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
  • Form uses POST method with invisible captcha token

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a security verification page using Google reCAPTCHA v3.
  2. No business or contact information is accessible on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No visible security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  5. WHOIS data shows domain registered since 2016 with Active24 registrar and custom name servers.
  6. External resources loaded from trusted CDNs and Google domains.
  7. No analytics or marketing tools detected beyond reCAPTCHA.
  8. Website appears to be either under protection or not publicly accessible without passing the captcha.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for responsive design and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. External resources are served from trusted CDNs and Google domains. The HTML is minimal and focused solely on the security verification challenge, with no visible CMS or backend technology identified. Performance is moderate given the lightweight content, but SEO and accessibility are poor due to lack of meaningful content and metadata. The site lacks advanced security headers and visible HTTPS enforcement, indicating technical debt and modernization opportunities. The current setup effectively blocks access to content, which may impact user experience and business operations.
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 martinkrejcir.cz. 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 martinkrejcir.cz.

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.