Skip to main content

Security report for pixelcoma.at

Pixelcoma · Media · Austria

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

28/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Pixelcoma is a small photography business based in Vienna, Austria, specializing in food photography, artist portraits, business portraits, workshops, and studio rentals. The website is built on WordPress with WooCommerce for e-commerce functionality and integrates common marketing and analytics tools such as Google Analytics and Mailchimp. The business targets local clients in the media and creative sectors, offering diversified services including an online shop and newsletter subscriptions. Technically, the website uses standard WordPress plugins and themes but lacks a valid SSL certificate, which significantly impacts its security posture. The absence of HTTPS exposes users to potential data interception risks, and no advanced security headers or mechanisms are implemented. Privacy compliance is partially addressed with a privacy policy and terms of service, but no cookie consent mechanism is present despite the use of tracking scripts. Overall, the website presents a professional design and good user experience but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

9 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

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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"

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

Keep watching pixelcoma.at

This scan found 21 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
0
Average
28

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

Pixelcoma operates in the media sector with a focus on photography services in Vienna. Its business model combines service offerings with e-commerce and educational workshops, targeting both individual and corporate clients. The company maintains an active social media presence and provides clear contact information, enhancing customer engagement. The website's technical infrastructure is typical for small businesses using WordPress and WooCommerce, hosted by Variomedia. While the business appears legitimate and consistent with its domain registration, the lack of HTTPS and cookie consent may affect customer trust and compliance with data protection regulations. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries from the website content or WHOIS data.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is a critical vulnerability. No modern TLS protocols or strong cipher suites are enabled, and essential security headers are missing. The site does not implement HSTS or OCSP stapling, reducing protection against man-in-the-middle attacks. Although no known vulnerabilities or malware are detected, the lack of basic security controls exposes the business and its users to risks. Privacy compliance is limited, with no cookie consent mechanism despite active tracking scripts. Incident response and security policies are not found, indicating a low maturity level in security governance.

Recommendations

  1. Acquire and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site immediately.
  2. Configure the web server to support modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) and strong cipher suites.
  3. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to mitigate common web attacks.
  4. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and inform users about tracking technologies.
  5. Develop and publish a security policy and incident response plan to improve security governance and readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with WooCommerce 9.9.3, using common plugins like Contact Form 7 and Mailchimp integration. It is hosted on an Apache server with DNS and mail services provided by Variomedia. The site loads multiple CSS and JavaScript resources, including jQuery and Google Analytics scripts. Performance data is missing, suggesting no active performance monitoring or optimization. Mobile optimization is basic, with responsive CSS present but no advanced accessibility features detected. SEO is basic with meta tags and canonical links but no structured data like JSON-LD or Open Graph tags. The lack of HTTPS and security headers represents a significant technical risk. The site uses a custom theme 'soho' with inline styles and scripts for gallery and UI interactions.
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 pixelcoma.at. 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 pixelcoma.at.

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.