Skip to main content

Security report for passive-eye.com

Passive Eye · Technology · United Kingdom

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Passive Eye is a UK-based company specializing in portable asset monitoring devices tailored for the marine and freight transport industries. Their patented dual energy harvesting technology enables continuous asset tracking and monitoring without the need for manual battery recharging, positioning them as an innovative player in the asset monitoring technology sector. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting B2B customers in transportation and logistics sectors. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and Yoast SEO plugin, offering moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled, but lacks advanced security headers and published security policies. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the domain registration data supports legitimacy and business maturity. Strategic improvements in security and privacy compliance would enhance trust and resilience.

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

8 findings rated critical or high. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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. 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

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

Keep watching passive-eye.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. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
47

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

The company operates in a niche market providing self-powered asset monitoring solutions, leveraging patented technology to differentiate from competitors who rely on battery-powered GPS trackers. Their business model focuses on integrated hardware and backend platform services, targeting marine and freight transport industries that require continuous monitoring without downtime. The website content and structure indicate a small but focused enterprise with clear contact channels and investor information. The absence of extensive marketing or advertising tools suggests a direct sales or partnership-driven approach. The company maintains a consistent brand presence and leverages social media primarily via Twitter. Growth potential lies in expanding adoption of their technology in logistics and marine sectors.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, ensuring encrypted communications, which is a fundamental security measure. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces protection against common web attacks. No visible security or incident response policies are published, which limits transparency and preparedness communication. The WHOIS data shows domain locking statuses that protect against unauthorized domain changes, a positive security indicator. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The lack of cookie consent and tracking disclosures may pose compliance risks under GDPR. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, policies, and compliance mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enable DNSSEC to protect DNS integrity.
  2. Add comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Deploy a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and inform users about cookie usage.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible on the website.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by auditing data collection and retention practices and updating privacy policy accordingly.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Passive Eye
Description
Passive Eye provides a portable monitoring device for the marine and freight transporting industries that tracks, monitors, and protects field assets without manual battery recharging.
Key services
Asset location tracking, Anti-theft alarms, Asset efficiency monitoring, Asset utilization reporting, Damage event reports, Condition monitoring alerts, Integrated hardware and backend platform
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, Yoast SEO, jQuery
Frameworks
Yoast SEO
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress with Divi child theme and Yoast SEO plugin.
  2. No cookie consent mechanism detected despite GDPR relevance.
  3. Contact information is clearly presented in footer with email, phone, and physical address.
  4. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy.
  5. No visible security headers detected in HTML content.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in provided HTML.
  7. Social media presence limited to Twitter link.
  8. Website content is focused on asset monitoring technology for marine and freight industries.
  9. No signs of suspicious or malicious content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a widely used CMS (WordPress) with a popular theme (Divi) and SEO plugin (Yoast), indicating a standard but effective technical foundation. The site loads multiple optimized images and uses jQuery for UI effects. Hosting appears to be with GoDaddy, inferred from registrar and nameservers. Performance is moderate with no major issues detected in the HTML. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive design and appropriate viewport settings. Accessibility is basic, with room for improvement in ARIA roles and semantic markup. SEO is supported by meta tags, Open Graph, Twitter cards, and JSON-LD structured data, enhancing search engine visibility. Technical risks include lack of DNSSEC and missing security headers, which should be addressed to improve resilience and trust.
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 passive-eye.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 passive-eye.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.