Skip to main content

Security report for prekvaptericany.cz

Other · Czech Republic

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website prekvaptericany.cz appears to be a small-scale local site with minimal content and no visible business or contact information. The domain is registered since 2016 under a Czech registrar and hosted on Forpsi servers, indicating a legitimate but modest online presence. The site uses modern frontend technology React and integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics, but lacks substantive content, privacy policies, or terms of service. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but missing important security headers and no visible incident response or data protection policies. Overall, the site is accessible but provides limited information, which impacts trust and credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

    • 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

  2. 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

  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 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 prekvaptericany.cz

This scan found 25 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
77
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
59

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 absence of business details, contact information, or service descriptions, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning or business model. The domain age and hosting suggest a stable but small local operation, possibly community or event related given the domain name. No partnerships or subsidiaries are evident. The lack of privacy and cookie policies and minimal content limit the site's appeal and professional image.

Security posture

The site benefits from HTTPS and basic cache-control headers but lacks advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection. No forms or input fields are present to assess input security. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The security score is moderate but could be improved significantly by implementing standard security headers and publishing security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve compliance.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to enhance security posture.
  3. Provide clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and user trust.
  4. Develop and publish incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to demonstrate security maturity.
  5. Enhance website content quality, SEO, and navigation to improve user experience and professional appearance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
React, Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager
Frameworks
React
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and lacks substantive information.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms present on the page.
  4. Uses React framework and Google Tag Manager for analytics.
  5. No security headers beyond basic cache control and robots directives.
  6. No visible business branding or company information on the page.
  7. No external business-related links except fonts and analytics.
  8. Website is accessible with no WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses React framework with JavaScript bundles and Google Fonts for styling. Google Tag Manager is integrated for analytics tracking. Hosting is provided by Forpsi, a Czech hosting provider. The site loads moderately fast but lacks meta descriptions, keywords, and title tags, negatively impacting SEO. Accessibility and mobile optimization are basic due to minimal content and structure. No CMS or backend technology is identifiable from the HTML. The technical implementation is modern but underutilized given the sparse content.
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 prekvaptericany.cz. 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 prekvaptericany.cz.

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.