Skip to main content

Security report for merseymail.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.merseymail.com appears to be a parked domain or placeholder site with minimal content primarily consisting of embedded advertisements and consent management scripts. There is no visible business information, contact details, or privacy policies, which significantly limits the ability to assess the business or its operations. The domain WHOIS data is missing, indicating the domain may be unregistered or expired, which raises serious legitimacy concerns. Technically, the site uses basic JavaScript and a consent management platform but lacks modern security headers and visible compliance documentation. Overall, the site exhibits a low level of digital maturity and business 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

8 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  2. 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"

  3. 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 merseymail.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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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

No identifiable business information, company name, or sector is present on the website. The site does not provide any services or products and lacks contact or legal information. The presence of third-party ad and tracking domains suggests a revenue model based on advertising or domain parking. There are no indicators of partnerships or subsidiaries. The lack of transparency and minimal content suggest the site is not actively used for legitimate business operations.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS but lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options. No visible vulnerability disclosures, incident response contacts, or security policies are present. The use of third-party ad and tracking domains without clear transparency may pose privacy risks. The consent management platform indicates some GDPR compliance effort, but the absence of privacy policies and contact information weakens the overall security posture. The missing WHOIS data further undermines trust in the domain's legitimacy.

Recommendations

  1. Register or renew the domain to ensure ownership legitimacy.
  2. Publish clear privacy policy, cookie policy, and terms of service documents.
  3. Add verifiable contact information including emails and phone numbers.
  4. Implement security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
  6. Improve website content quality and business transparency.
  7. Disclose incident response and vulnerability reporting contacts.
  8. Review and limit use of third-party ad and tracking domains for privacy compliance.
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
poor

Security

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

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
AboveDomains, ConsentManager
Tracking pixels
cdn-fileserver.com
Marketing tools
ConsentManager CMP
Transparency
poor

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 embedded iframes and ad scripts.
  2. No privacy policy, terms of service, or contact information found on the site.
  3. Consent management platform is implemented indicating some GDPR compliance effort.
  4. WHOIS data is missing, indicating domain may be unregistered or expired.
  5. External domains used for ads and tracking are unrelated and potentially suspicious.
  6. No visible business or company information on the site.
  7. No forms or user input fields detected.
  8. No social media or official contact channels found.
  9. Website appears to be a parked domain or ad landing page.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML and JavaScript, primarily loading scripts from ConsentManager for cookie consent management. There is no detected CMS or advanced framework. The site loads multiple external scripts and iframes from unrelated third-party domains, likely for advertising and tracking purposes. Performance is moderate but limited by external dependencies. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with minimal content and no structured navigation. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meta tags and meaningful content. The absence of security headers and modern best practices indicates technical debt and potential risks.
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 merseymail.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 merseymail.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.