Skip to main content

Security report for meliusdesign.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.meliusdesign.com appears to be either under development or inactive, with minimal content and no meaningful business information presented. The site uses modern frontend technologies such as Vue.js and Swiper.js but lacks substantive content, contact details, or privacy and security policies. The WHOIS data query returned no registration information, indicating the domain may not be registered or WHOIS data is not publicly available, which raises significant trust concerns. Technically, the site is accessible and uses HTTPS, but lacks security headers and privacy compliance indicators. Overall, the site presents a low maturity digital presence with poor business credibility and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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 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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

    • 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

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

Keep watching meliusdesign.com

This scan found 20 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
75
Security headers
55
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
67

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

Due to the absence of business descriptions, contact information, or company identifiers, it is not possible to ascertain the market positioning, business model, or target audience of the entity behind this website. The lack of WHOIS data further complicates any business intelligence assessment. The site appears to be a placeholder or template with generic product listings and no real e-commerce or service offerings. No partnerships or certifications are evident.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak. While HTTPS is enabled, no security headers were detected, and there are no visible privacy or cookie policies to indicate compliance with GDPR or other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. The absence of WHOIS data and registrant information further reduces trust. No analytics or tracking scripts were found, which limits data exposure but also indicates minimal user engagement tracking. Overall, the site lacks essential security and privacy controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  2. Add clear contact information including company address, phone numbers, and support emails.
  3. Configure and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available to improve trust.
  5. Enhance website content quality and professionalism to improve business credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Vue.js, Swiper.js, Element UI
Frameworks
Vue.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly placeholder with no meaningful business information.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or company details provided.
  4. No security headers or advanced SSL/TLS configurations detected.
  5. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  6. Social media links present but disabled and generic (pointing to main social media homepages).
  7. No WHOIS data available; domain appears unregistered or WHOIS data is blocked.
  8. Website uses Vue.js and Swiper.js for frontend but lacks substantive content.
  9. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  10. No evidence of business certifications or security policies.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern frontend stack including Vue.js and Swiper.js for UI components. The HTML structure is valid but content is minimal and mostly placeholder. No CMS or backend platform is detected. The site is served over HTTPS but lacks advanced SSL/TLS configuration details. Performance appears moderate but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. SEO metadata is minimal with empty title and description tags. No analytics or marketing tools are integrated. Overall, the technical implementation is basic and requires significant enhancement for production readiness.
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 meliusdesign.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 meliusdesign.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.