Skip to main content

Security report for mfadsrvr.com

Media Force, Ltd. · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website hellogenie.com represents Media Force, Ltd., a small technology company specializing in algorithmic advertising powered by machine learning and data analytics. The site is minimalistic, serving primarily as an informational landing page with a focus on business-to-business advertising solutions. The company appears to have a stable market position as a niche player in advertising technology, founded in 2013, with a consistent domain registration history. Technically, the website uses a basic tech stack including jQuery, Bootstrap, and Google Fonts, hosted likely on AWS infrastructure as indicated by DNS records. The site lacks advanced CMS or analytics tools and shows only basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. Performance is moderate given the lightweight content and standard libraries. From a security perspective, the site has room for improvement. There are no detected security headers, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no HTTPS enforcement information is available. The domain is protected by standard registrar locks but lacks published security policies or incident response contacts. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the website is safe with no adult or questionable content, but the limited content and security features suggest a need for enhancements to improve trust, compliance, and technical robustness. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing security headers, enforcing HTTPS, and adding cookie consent to align with GDPR requirements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching mfadsrvr.com

This scan found 27 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
53
Average
53

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

Media Force, Ltd. operates in the technology and media sectors, focusing on algorithmic advertising solutions that leverage machine learning and data analytics. Their business model is B2B, targeting companies seeking advanced advertising technologies. The company has maintained its domain since 2013, indicating operational stability. The website content and contact information suggest a small-sized enterprise with a moderate market presence. There is no evidence of subsidiaries or partner domains. The lack of social media presence and limited contact details may constrain growth and customer engagement. The company could benefit from expanding its digital footprint and enhancing transparency through additional business information and certifications.

Security posture

The current security posture of hellogenie.com is basic with notable gaps. The absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security reduces protection against common web attacks. DNSSEC is not enabled, which could expose DNS queries to spoofing. No incident response or security policy information is published, limiting transparency and preparedness. The domain is secured with registrar locks, which is positive. No vulnerable libraries were detected, but the use of an older jQuery version could pose risks if not patched. Privacy compliance is partial, lacking cookie consent mechanisms despite having a privacy policy. Overall, the site is functional but requires improvements to meet modern security and compliance standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Ensure HTTPS is enforced across the entire website to protect data in transit.
  4. Add a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  5. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Media Force, Ltd.
Description
Algorithmic advertising based on machine learning and data analytics.
Key services
Algorithmic advertising, Machine learning based ad targeting, Data analytics for advertising
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.1.4, jQuery UI 1.11.4, Bootstrap CSS and JS, Google Fonts (Oswald, Source Sans Pro)
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Domain status includes clientDeleteProhibited and other EPP locks

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a simple informational page with minimal content.
  2. No forms or interactive elements detected.
  3. Contact is limited to a single company email address.
  4. No phone numbers or physical addresses provided.
  5. No social media links found.
  6. No cookie consent mechanism present despite privacy policy.
  7. No visible security headers or advanced security features.
  8. DNSSEC not enabled, which is a security improvement opportunity.
  9. Use of standard libraries and frameworks but somewhat outdated jQuery version.
  10. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a traditional tech stack with jQuery 2.1.4, jQuery UI, and Bootstrap for styling and interactivity. Google Fonts are used for typography. There is no detected CMS or advanced platform. Hosting appears to be on AWS based on DNS nameservers. The site is lightweight but lacks modern performance optimizations and accessibility features. The HTML is valid but minimal, with no structured data or SEO enhancements beyond basic meta tags. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, indicating minimal user tracking. The site could benefit from modernization including updated libraries, improved mobile responsiveness, and SEO enhancements to increase visibility and user engagement.
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 mfadsrvr.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 mfadsrvr.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.