Skip to main content

Security report for nohorror.com

No Horror Digital Marketing · Technology · N/a

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

No Horror Digital Marketing is a small digital marketing agency established in 2014, specializing in creative marketing solutions. The company targets businesses seeking digital marketing services and maintains a professional online presence with a well-structured WordPress website. The site integrates modern technologies including Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot for cookie consent, and multiple analytics platforms such as Google Analytics, PostHog, Segment, and Mixpanel, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. The website is mobile optimized and SEO friendly, with good content quality and consistent branding. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented, though there is room for improvement in security headers and DNSSEC deployment. Privacy compliance is supported by Cookiebot's consent mechanism, but the absence of a visible privacy policy and terms of service is a notable gap. Overall, the domain registration data supports the legitimacy of the business with consistent WHOIS information and appropriate domain age.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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. 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

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

Keep watching nohorror.com

This scan found 26 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
60
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
83
Average
50
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention nohorror.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for nohorror.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The company operates in the technology sector as a digital marketing service provider with a focus on creative marketing. Its business model revolves around providing digital marketing services to clients, leveraging analytics and tracking tools to optimize campaigns. The presence of a Facebook page as a social media channel suggests engagement with clients and prospects. The company appears to be small-sized with no public parent or subsidiary companies. The website content and metadata indicate a focus on marketing services, but lack detailed business or contact information, which may limit direct client engagement through the site. The use of multiple analytics and marketing tools suggests a data-driven approach to marketing services.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent mechanism that complies with GDPR principles. However, the lack of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security robustness. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact information indicates limited transparency in security governance. The extensive use of third-party analytics and tracking services increases the attack surface and privacy risks, necessitating vigilant data protection practices.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement additional HTTP security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service accessible from the website footer or main navigation.
  4. Add a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Review and minimize third-party tracking to reduce privacy risks and improve user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
No Horror Digital Marketing
Description
No Horror
Key services
Digital marketing, Creative marketing solutions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, WPBakery Page Builder, Slider Revolution 6.3.4, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, jQuery 3.7.1
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent with granular controls
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, PostHog, Segment, Mixpanel
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google
Tracking pixels
PostHog, Segment, Mixpanel
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress CMS with popular plugins
  2. Cookie consent implemented with Cookiebot, allowing granular user control
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on homepage or metadata
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in HTML content
  5. Social media presence limited to Facebook page linked in structured data
  6. Use of multiple analytics and tracking services indicating extensive user data collection
  7. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information
  8. Domain WHOIS data is public and consistent with business age
  9. No WAF or blocking detected, site content fully accessible
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with popular plugins such as WPBakery Page Builder and Slider Revolution, indicating a modern and flexible content management system. The use of Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot reflects a mature approach to analytics and privacy compliance. Performance is moderate with standard optimization practices observed. Mobile responsiveness is good, and SEO is supported by Yoast SEO plugin metadata. Hosting provider details are not explicit but nameservers suggest hosting in Lithuania. No critical technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. Opportunities exist to enhance security configurations and improve accessibility features.
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 nohorror.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 nohorror.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.