Skip to main content

Security report for mep.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at www.mep.com currently presents minimal content, primarily consisting of embedded consent management scripts from ConsentManager. There is no visible business information, metadata, or user-facing content to describe the company, its services, or contact details. The domain WHOIS query returned no registration data, indicating the domain may be unregistered, parked, or protected, which raises significant trust concerns. The lack of privacy policy, terms of service, or contact information further limits the ability to assess the business credibility or compliance posture. Technically, the site uses JavaScript and a third-party consent management platform to handle cookie and privacy consent, but no other modern frameworks, CMS, or analytics services are detected. The website appears to have basic mobile optimization and accessibility but lacks SEO metadata and security headers. HTTPS status cannot be confirmed from the provided data. From a security perspective, the site lacks visible security best practices such as security headers and published policies. The absence of WHOIS data and business information suggests a low trust level and potential risk. No adult or explicit content is detected, and the site is rated safe for general audiences. Overall, the website is of low quality, with poor content and minimal technical sophistication. The domain registration status and lack of transparency significantly reduce trustworthiness. Strategic recommendations include registering the domain properly, publishing comprehensive privacy and security policies, adding contact information, implementing HTTPS with strong security headers, and improving website content and structure to build credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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. 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

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  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';…

  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

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

Keep watching mep.com

This scan found 23 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
51

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-related content, metadata, or structured data, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears unregistered or parked, and no company name, sector, or market positioning is evident. There are no indications of partnerships, subsidiaries, or revenue models. The website does not provide any information about target customers or competitive advantages.

Security posture

The security posture is weak given the lack of HTTPS confirmation, absence of security headers, and no published security or incident response policies. The presence of a consent management platform indicates some awareness of privacy compliance, but without visible privacy policies or contact channels, compliance is incomplete. The missing WHOIS data and domain registration status further degrade trust. No vulnerabilities or malware indicators are detected in the content, but the overall security maturity is low.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is publicly available or justified if privacy protected.
  2. Publish clear and comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages.
  3. Add visible contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident reporting.
  4. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Enhance website content quality with business descriptions, metadata, and structured data to improve SEO and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, ConsentManager CMP
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Consent management platform implemented

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
ConsentManager
Tracking pixels
ConsentManager tracking pixel
Marketing tools
ConsentManager CMP
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly consists of consent management scripts
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service found
  4. No forms or user input fields detected
  5. No metadata such as title, description, or Open Graph tags present
  6. No structured data (JSON-LD) found
  7. No social media or external business links detected
  8. ConsentManager CMP is implemented for cookie and privacy consent
  9. No security headers or HTTPS confirmation in provided data
  10. WHOIS data indicates domain is not registered or WHOIS is blocked
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic JavaScript and integrates a third-party consent management platform (ConsentManager) for cookie and privacy consent. No CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. The site lacks metadata such as titles, descriptions, or Open Graph tags, and no structured data (JSON-LD) is present. Performance appears moderate but cannot be fully assessed due to minimal content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. No analytics or marketing tools beyond consent management are detected. Hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not available from the provided data.
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 mep.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 mep.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.