Skip to main content

Security report for oneafs.org

Other · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website at https://oneafs.org/afs/ represents a small organization or project with a domain registered in 2020 and hosted via Cloudflare. The site is built using modern web technologies including Angular 18, Google Tag Manager for analytics, and Tableau embedding for data visualization. However, the visible content is minimal, primarily a loading shell of a single-page application with no textual content or metadata describing the business or its services. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact information or forms are found, limiting user engagement and trust. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but lacking DNSSEC and security headers. Overall, the site appears functional but lacks comprehensive content and compliance features.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

10 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: MSSQL

      Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL 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
    • 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';…

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

Keep watching oneafs.org

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
25
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
35
Average
45

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The business behind the domain appears to be a small entity founded around 2020, with no explicit business description or sector identified from the site content. The lack of contact details, policies, or certifications suggests an early-stage or internal-facing platform rather than a public commercial service. The use of Tableau embedding indicates possible data reporting or analytics services. The domain registration is consistent and stable, but the absence of business information limits deeper market positioning or competitive analysis.

Security posture

Security maturity is moderate with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer protection enabled. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided. The site does not expose sensitive data visibly, but the lack of security best practices and compliance documentation indicates room for improvement in security governance and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Add clear contact information and incident response channels for security and user support.
  5. Improve website content with business descriptions, terms of service, and trust indicators to enhance credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Angular 18.2.13, Google Tag Manager, Google Identity Services, Tableau Embedding API
Frameworks
Angular
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly a loading Angular app shell with no visible textual content or metadata describing the business.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms detected in the HTML content.
  4. Uses modern JavaScript frameworks and Google Tag Manager for analytics.
  5. No security headers detected in the HTML content; DNSSEC not enabled.
  6. Domain is registered with Cloudflare as registrar, created in 2020, expires in 2026.
  7. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms.
  8. No social media or external business-related links found in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern Angular framework (version 18.2.13) with asynchronous loading of Google Tag Manager and Tableau embedding scripts, indicating a focus on interactive and data-driven content. Hosting is via Cloudflare, providing CDN and security benefits. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design elements. However, SEO optimization is poor due to missing meta descriptions and robots meta tag set to noindex,nofollow, which prevents search engine indexing. Accessibility features are basic, and no CMS is detected. Performance is moderate given the use of heavy JavaScript frameworks but no explicit performance metrics are available.
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 oneafs.org. 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 oneafs.org.

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.