Skip to main content

Security report for phoenixps.com

Phoenix 2025 · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'Phoenix 2025' appears to be a minimal Wix-built site with very limited content and no clear business description or contact information. The domain WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating the domain may not be registered or WHOIS data is private, which raises concerns about legitimacy. Technically, the site uses Wix platform technologies and includes some modern JavaScript polyfills and Sentry for error monitoring, but lacks security headers and privacy compliance features. The security posture is weak due to missing policies and contact channels for incident response. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile with poor SEO and minimal business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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

4 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 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

  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 phoenixps.com

This scan found 22 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
69
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
70

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 description, contact details, and WHOIS data, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning or business model of Phoenix 2025. The site does not provide any clear services or industry classification. The absence of trust indicators and certifications further limits business intelligence insights. The site likely represents a small or early-stage entity with limited digital presence.

Security posture

The security posture is basic and lacks critical elements such as security headers, privacy and cookie policies, and incident response contacts. The use of HTTPS is assumed but not confirmed from the data. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. The absence of WHOIS data and contact information reduces the ability to verify legitimacy and respond to security incidents effectively.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is available and accurate to improve trust.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  4. Implement security headers and enforce HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configuration.
  5. Improve SEO by removing 'noindex' tags and adding relevant meta tags and content.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Phoenix 2025
Description
No explicit business description found in the content. The site appears to be a Wix-built website with minimal content and no clear business narrative.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix.com Website Builder, JavaScript, Segmenter Polyfill, Core-js, Focus-within-polyfill, Performance API Polyfills, Sentry (browser monitoring)
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with minimal content.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, domain may be unregistered or WHOIS privacy protected.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or business details provided.
  5. No security headers or advanced security features detected.
  6. No signs of WAF or content blocking.
  7. Content is minimal and lacks business description or trust signals.
  8. SEO is poor with 'noindex' meta tag present.
  9. Site uses Sentry for error monitoring but no analytics or marketing tools detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform using standard Wix JavaScript libraries and polyfills. It includes Sentry for client-side error monitoring. The site is mobile optimized and uses modern CSS and JavaScript features with polyfills for compatibility. However, SEO is poor due to 'noindex' meta tag and minimal content. No advanced frameworks or backend technologies are evident. Hosting is provided by Wix. Performance appears moderate but cannot be fully assessed from the data. Accessibility features are basic.
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 phoenixps.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 phoenixps.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.