Skip to main content

Security report for pitcherfestival.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.pitcherfestival.com appears to be an event or festival site built on the Wix platform, leveraging standard Wix technologies and third-party analytics tools such as Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Yandex Metrika, and Sendinblue for marketing automation. The site is accessible without any WAF or security challenge blocking content. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about the domain's legitimacy and registration status. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies were found, indicating potential compliance gaps. The site lacks visible contact information, which impacts business credibility. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies but could improve in security headers and privacy compliance. Overall, the site demonstrates moderate technical maturity but has significant gaps in privacy and business transparency.

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

7 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching pitcherfestival.com

This scan found 27 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
62
Security headers
35
Email security
75
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
62

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 business behind the site is not clearly identified due to missing WHOIS and contact information. The site likely targets festival attendees or music event audiences, operating on a small scale given the limited business data. The use of Wix suggests a lean operational model focused on ease of deployment rather than enterprise-grade infrastructure. Marketing efforts include multiple tracking and retargeting tools, indicating an intent to engage and convert visitors. The lack of formal policies and contact details suggests the business may be in early stages or lacks professional compliance focus.

Security posture

Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled and some client-side hardening scripts present. However, no security headers were detected, and there is no evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies. The use of multiple third-party scripts increases the attack surface, and the absence of privacy and cookie policies raises compliance risks. The domain's unknown registration status further reduces trust. Overall, the security maturity is low to moderate, with recommendations to implement security headers, formal policies, and improve transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit consent mechanisms to ensure GDPR compliance.
  2. Publish terms of service and security incident response information to enhance transparency and trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to improve security posture.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration to ensure domain legitimacy and reduce suspicion.
  5. Include clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Yandex Metrika, Sendinblue, Sentry
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of security override globals script to harden fetch and XHR

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Yandex Metrika
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Yandex Metrika, Sendinblue
Marketing tools
Sendinblue
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and assets
  2. No WHOIS data available indicating domain registration issues
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content
  5. Use of multiple tracking and analytics services without visible privacy compliance
  6. No security headers detected in provided data
  7. No forms detected in the provided HTML content
  8. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenge
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Wix, using Wix's proprietary CMS and infrastructure. It employs common analytics and marketing scripts including Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Yandex Metrika, and Sendinblue. The site loads scripts asynchronously and uses modern JavaScript bundling. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization. Accessibility features are basic and could be improved. No forms or data collection fields were detected in the provided HTML. The site lacks advanced security headers and formal privacy compliance mechanisms, indicating technical debt in security and compliance areas.
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 pitcherfestival.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 pitcherfestival.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.