Skip to main content

Security report for minutpass.com

Partial score · DNS & email only

60/100

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

Scanned

5 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

1 finding rated critical or high in the checks that completed. 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.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

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

Keep watching minutpass.com

Only DNS and email could be checked this time. Monitoring re-checks every day and emails you when something material changes.

Daily monitoring

€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.

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

Email security
55
DNS health
65
Average
60

Not counted

  • SSL/TLS: did not complete in this scan.
  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • Network security: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 lack of content and business information on the website, detailed business intelligence is not available. The domain age and hosting on AWS suggest a potentially legitimate business foundation since 2015, but no competitive advantages, revenue streams, or target customer segments can be identified. No partnerships or subsidiaries are mentioned. The absence of marketing or analytics tools further limits insight into business operations or growth indicators.

Security posture

The security posture of minutpass.com is currently very weak. The site lacks HTTPS, security headers, and any visible security policies or incident response contacts. There is no evidence of GDPR compliance or data protection officer information. The absence of vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files indicates low security maturity. The domain registration is stable and consistent, but the website itself does not demonstrate adherence to security best practices, exposing potential risks to visitors and users.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure all communications.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Publish clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and trust.
  4. Incorporate security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Develop a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contacts to enhance security transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is extremely minimal with only a single heading '12' and no metadata or structured data.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms present on the page.
  4. No scripts, external links, or social media links detected.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available from provided data.
  6. Domain is registered since 2015 with no privacy protection and uses AWS DNS servers.
  7. Website appears to be either under development or abandoned with no meaningful content.
  8. No indicators of WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
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 minutpass.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 minutpass.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.