Skip to main content

Security report for pixls.us

Pat David · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

PIXLS.US is a niche online platform dedicated to free and open source photography, providing tutorials, workflows, and a community forum for enthusiasts and professionals interested in F/OSS photography software. Founded in 2011, it serves a small but engaged audience with quality content authored primarily by Pat David. The website is hosted under the registrar Gandi SAS with a stable domain registration and no privacy protection, reflecting transparency and legitimacy. Technically, the site uses standard web technologies including HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, and Piwik/Matomo analytics for privacy-conscious user tracking. The site is mobile optimized with good navigation and content relevance, though it lacks a CMS and advanced frameworks.

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

9 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 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 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

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

Keep watching pixls.us

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
55
Security headers
40
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
60

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 model centers on content creation and community engagement within the free/open source photography niche. Revenue streams are not explicit but likely include community support and possibly donations or sponsorships. The site maintains a consistent brand and trust signals such as Creative Commons licensing and author attribution. The target audience includes photographers and developers interested in open source imaging software. The platform's competitive advantage lies in its specialized content and active community forum. Partnerships or subsidiaries are not evident from the data. Growth indicators include regular blog and article updates, though privacy and compliance policies are lacking.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and has domain transfer protections in place, but lacks DNSSEC and common security headers, which are recommended to enhance security posture. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and other privacy regulations. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are absent, reducing transparency in security management. The use of Piwik/Matomo analytics suggests a privacy-aware approach to user tracking. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be improved by implementing recommended headers, policies, and disclosure mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and security readiness.
  5. Consider adding explicit contact information including company emails and phone numbers to enhance trust and user support.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Pat David
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Pat David
Description
To provide tutorials, workflows and a showcase for high-quality photography using Free/Open Source Software.
Key services
Photography tutorials, Workflow guides, Showcase of photography, Blog posts, Community discussion forum
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript, Piwik/Matomo analytics
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Services
Piwik/Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Piwik/Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a niche community resource focused on free/open source photography
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, indicating compliance gaps
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on homepage
  4. Uses Piwik/Matomo for analytics, indicating privacy-conscious tracking
  5. No visible security headers or advanced security policies implemented
  6. WHOIS data shows stable and consistent domain registration with no privacy protection
  7. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences
  8. No WAF or blocking detected, full content accessible
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with standard web technologies and uses Piwik/Matomo for analytics, indicating a preference for open source and privacy-friendly tools. The absence of a known CMS suggests a custom or static site approach. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO meta tags present. However, the lack of advanced frameworks or modern JavaScript libraries may limit interactivity and scalability. The site could benefit from improved accessibility features and performance optimizations. Hosting is via Gandi SAS, a reputable registrar and hosting provider. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but basic, with opportunities for modernization and enhanced security.
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 pixls.us. 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 pixls.us.

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.