Skip to main content

Security report for parker.com

Parker · Manufacturing · N/a

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

44/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The domain parker.com appears to represent a large manufacturing business, likely Parker Hannifin or a related entity, based on DNS and domain data. However, the website content is currently inaccessible due to an access denial page, likely caused by a Web Application Firewall or other security mechanism. This prevents direct analysis of business content, policies, or contact information. The technical infrastructure includes Akamai CDN services and multiple MX mail servers, indicating enterprise-grade hosting and email setup. Security posture is weak on the web server side, with no valid SSL certificate or HTTPS support detected, which is a critical issue. The domain's DNS and WHOIS data show a consistent and legitimate registration with appropriate email security policies such as DMARC with reject policy and reporting enabled. Overall, the site is currently not accessible for normal users, limiting content and privacy compliance analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 100 · Critical
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 parker.com

This scan found 18 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
44

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

Parker.com is associated with a large manufacturing sector entity, supported by DNS records and MX servers. The domain is well-established and uses Akamai for content delivery, suggesting a global or enterprise-level operation. The lack of accessible website content limits insights into market positioning, revenue streams, or customer segments. The domain's email infrastructure is robust with multiple MX records and strict DMARC policies, indicating a mature approach to email security. No visible partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the limited data. The business likely targets industrial or manufacturing clients given the domain and sector classification.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is currently poor due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, exposing users to potential risks if the site were accessible. The presence of HttpOnly and Secure flags on cookies is a positive practice. The domain enforces a strict DMARC policy with reject and reporting, which is a strong email security indicator. No other security headers such as HSTS are enabled, and no modern TLS protocols are supported. The site is blocked by a WAF or security mechanism, which may protect it from attacks but also prevents legitimate access. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not publicly available. Overall, the security maturity is moderate at the domain level but weak at the web server level.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user connections.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and configure strong cipher suites.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload options.
  4. Provide publicly accessible privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Publish security and incident response policies including vulnerability disclosure and contact channels to enhance transparency and security posture.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted behind Akamai CDN using AkamaiGHost server technology. DNS records show multiple MX servers for email redundancy and robust email security with DMARC reject policy. The SSL configuration is missing or invalid, with no TLS protocols enabled, which is a critical technical deficiency. Performance data is unavailable due to blocked content. No CMS or frameworks were detected from the limited HTML. The site uses font preloading and FontAwesome fonts from external sources. The access denial page indicates a WAF or security mechanism blocking access, which impacts usability and analysis. Technical modernization is needed to enable HTTPS and improve security headers.
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 parker.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 parker.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.