Skip to main content

Security report for pixilic.com

Hunter Fuller · Technology · N/a

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Network security and 3 other checks.

Security score

32/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Pixilic.com is a personal technical blog operated by Hunter Fuller, focusing on topics such as networking, Linux, VoIP, and home automation. The site serves a niche audience of technology enthusiasts and IT professionals, providing detailed blog posts, tutorials, and talks. The business model is content publishing without apparent commercial transactions or services. The domain has been registered since 2009, indicating a stable and long-term presence. Technically, the website is built on WordPress 6.4.5 using the JupiterX Lite theme, with jQuery and standard web technologies. The site is hosted likely via NameCheap, with HTTPS enabled and moderate performance. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic to good, with room for improvement in SEO and security headers. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS and domain transfer protection, but lacks DNSSEC and important security headers. No privacy or cookie policies are present, which is a compliance gap. No contact or incident response information is provided, limiting trust and transparency. Overall, the site is trustworthy and safe, with good content quality but limited privacy and security compliance. Strategic improvements in privacy policies, security headers, and contact transparency would enhance the site's credibility and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

9 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 pixilic.com

This scan found 24 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
60
DNS health
65
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
50
Average
32

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 · found on this site
  • 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 website operates as a personal blog with a focus on technical content, targeting a specialized audience interested in IT and networking. It does not appear to generate revenue through advertising or affiliate programs, relying instead on content sharing and community engagement. The external links suggest a network of related personal or technical sites, indicating a collaborative ecosystem. The site's longevity and consistent content updates demonstrate commitment and expertise, positioning it as a niche authority rather than a commercial enterprise.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The site uses HTTPS and has domain transfer protection, which are positive indicators. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which could hinder timely security issue reporting. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing policies and consent mechanisms. There is no evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries, but the security posture would benefit from enhancements in these areas.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security.
  2. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to mitigate common web attacks.
  3. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  4. Add clear contact information and a security.txt file to facilitate incident reporting and improve transparency.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and plugins to avoid vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Hunter Fuller
Description
Personal blog and technical content site by Hunter Fuller, sharing insights on technology, networking, Linux, VoIP, home automation, and related topics.
Key services
Technical blog articles, Talks and presentations, Technical tutorials and guides
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.4.5, jQuery 3.7.1, JupiterX Lite theme, HTML5, CSS3
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal technical blog by Hunter Fuller.
  2. Content is focused on technology, networking, Linux, VoIP, and home automation.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  6. Website uses WordPress CMS with JupiterX Lite theme.
  7. HTTPS is enabled with no visible SSL issues.
  8. No advanced security headers detected.
  9. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  10. External links mostly to personal or related technical sites.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform with a lightweight theme and uses current versions of jQuery and other scripts. The HTML and CSS are valid and well-structured, supporting good user experience and mobile responsiveness. Performance is moderate, with no major bottlenecks detected. The site lacks advanced SEO optimizations and accessibility features, which could be improved to enhance reach and usability. Hosting appears stable but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and monitoring.
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 pixilic.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 pixilic.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.