Skip to main content

Security report for myf.global

Other · N/a

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

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at myf.global presents minimal accessible content with no clear business description or contact information. The domain WHOIS data is limited and privacy-protected, providing no creation or expiry dates, registrant organization, or country information, which reduces trust and transparency. Technically, the site uses common analytics and tag management tools such as Google Tag Manager and Yandex Metrika, but lacks visible security headers and privacy compliance indicators. The overall security posture is basic, with no advanced protections or policies evident. The site appears to be a minimal or placeholder presence with low content quality and limited business credibility.

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 myf.global

This scan found 25 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
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
64

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 lack of business information, contact details, and structured data, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning or business model of the entity behind myf.global. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as contact channels, suggests a low level of operational maturity and transparency. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The use of analytics indicates some level of visitor tracking, but without clear privacy disclosures. Overall, the business intelligence points to a small or early-stage entity with limited public-facing information.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is basic and lacks several best practices. HTTPS presence is assumed but not explicitly confirmed due to lack of headers data. No security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are detected. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The use of third-party analytics introduces moderate user tracking without clear privacy compliance. The domain's privacy-protected WHOIS data and lack of registrant transparency further reduce trust. Recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing clear contact and incident response information.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configuration and verify via security headers
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements
  3. Publish contact information including security incident response and abuse contacts
  4. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate vulnerabilities and update third-party libraries
  5. Improve website content quality and transparency to enhance business credibility and trust
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Yandex Metrika, Jodit WYSIWYG Editor
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Yandex Metrika
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Yandex Metrika
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. WHOIS data is incomplete and privacy-protected
  2. Website content is minimal and lacks business information
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found
  5. Uses Google Tag Manager and analytics scripts but lacks transparency on data policies
  6. No visible security headers or advanced security measures detected
  7. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms
  8. Website appears to be a minimal or placeholder site with low content quality
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses modern JavaScript modules and the Jodit WYSIWYG editor, indicating some level of technical sophistication. Google Tag Manager and Yandex Metrika are integrated for analytics and tracking. However, the site lacks visible CMS identification and hosting provider details. Performance appears moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic but present. SEO optimization is minimal with only basic meta tags and no structured data found. The technical infrastructure is functional but could benefit from enhancements in security, privacy, and content management.
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 myf.global. 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 myf.global.

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.