Skip to main content

Security report for portfoliomc.com

Security Verification · Other · N/a

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website portfoliomc.com currently serves a security verification page that blocks access to its main content. This page uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 to verify visitors are not bots, indicating a protective measure likely implemented to prevent automated abuse or attacks. Due to this blocking, no business-specific content, contact information, or policies are accessible for analysis. The domain is registered and has standard DNS records but lacks DNSSEC and CAA configurations. The absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical security deficiency, exposing users to potential risks and undermining trust. The technical stack includes nginx as the web server and Bootstrap 5 for styling, but the overall digital maturity is low given the lack of accessible content and security best practices. Security posture is weak, with no modern TLS protocols enabled and missing essential security headers. Privacy compliance is non-existent as no privacy or cookie policies are found. Business credibility cannot be established due to lack of visible company information. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for meaningful user interaction and requires significant improvements in security and content availability.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 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. 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. 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching portfoliomc.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. 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
55
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
49

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 blocking security verification page, no direct business intelligence can be derived from the website content. The domain is active with basic DNS and mail exchange setup, suggesting some operational infrastructure. The use of Google reCAPTCHA indicates concern for security or abuse prevention. No information about market positioning, business model, or services is available. No contact or social media links are present to infer partnerships or customer engagement. The lack of SSL and security policies further limits trust and professional presentation. Without access to core content, the business intelligence remains minimal and inconclusive.

Security posture

The security posture of portfoliomc.com is currently poor. The site lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS protocols, resulting in unencrypted HTTP traffic. No HSTS policy is implemented, and critical security headers are missing. While the site uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 to mitigate automated threats, this alone is insufficient to ensure robust security. The absence of OCSP stapling and session resumption reduces performance and security. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is available. DNSSEC and CAA records are not enabled, which could improve DNS security. Overall, the site is vulnerable to interception and lacks modern security best practices, posing risks to users and the business.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and install a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and protect user data.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and disable all insecure protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Add comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  6. Provide visible and verified contact information including email and phone for business credibility.
  7. Enable DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance DNS security and certificate issuance control.
  8. Develop and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact channels.
  9. Improve website content accessibility by removing or adjusting the security verification page to allow legitimate users access.
  10. Conduct a full security audit and penetration test to identify and remediate additional vulnerabilities.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on an nginx server with IP 185.151.30.167 and uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for frontend styling. Google reCAPTCHA v3 is integrated for bot detection and mitigation. However, the site lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS protocols, forcing unencrypted HTTP connections. Security headers are minimal, with only cache-control and a custom x-stackprotect-id header present. The site uses a secure and HttpOnly cookie for stackprotect but lacks other common security headers. DNS records are standard but do not include DNSSEC or CAA. Performance data is unavailable due to the blocking page. The site is mobile responsive at a basic level due to Bootstrap but lacks SEO and accessibility optimizations. Overall, the technical implementation is incomplete and requires modernization and security hardening.
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 portfoliomc.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 portfoliomc.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.