Skip to main content

Security report for prop.cm

Other · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The domain prop.cm is registered since 2012 with a UK-based registrar and has a valid registration status with clientTransferProhibited, indicating some level of domain security. However, the website content is completely empty with no metadata, scripts, or visible content, suggesting the site is either inactive, under construction, or blocked by a security mechanism. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, nor is there any contact information or business-related content. The technical infrastructure appears to be hosted on AWS DNS servers, but no further technology stack details are available due to the lack of content. Security posture cannot be properly assessed due to missing HTTPS and security headers information. Overall, the site presents a high risk due to lack of transparency and content, limiting trust and usability.

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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. 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 prop.cm

This scan found 20 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
100
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
70

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

No business information or branding is available on the website to analyze market positioning, business model, or services. The domain age suggests a potentially established entity, but the absence of content and contact details prevents any meaningful business intelligence extraction. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The domain registration data is consistent with the registrar's location, but no further business credibility can be established.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and any visible security or privacy policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The domain status clientTransferProhibited is a positive indicator for domain security. Without website content, no vulnerabilities or security best practices can be confirmed. The site likely lacks compliance with GDPR or other data protection regulations due to missing policies and contact information.

Recommendations

  1. Deploy a fully functional website with proper content, metadata, and navigation to improve trust and usability.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL/TLS certificates and configure essential security headers.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Add clear contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses to enhance business credibility.
  5. Establish incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms to improve security posture and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is minimal/empty HTML body with no metadata or scripts, indicating possible blocking or placeholder page. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
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 completely empty with no metadata or visible content.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms present.
  4. No scripts or technologies detected in HTML.
  5. Domain WHOIS data is valid and consistent but website appears inactive or blocked.
  6. No security headers or SSL configuration data available.
  7. No analytics or advertising technologies detected.
  8. No social media or external links found.
  9. Website is likely inaccessible or placeholder, limiting analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves an empty HTML page with no metadata, scripts, or detectable technologies. DNS records indicate hosting on AWS DNS infrastructure. No CMS or frameworks are detected. Performance and accessibility cannot be assessed due to lack of content. The absence of SEO metadata and structured data indicates technical immaturity. The domain registration is stable and consistent but the website itself is not operational or accessible for meaningful technical evaluation.
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 prop.cm. 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 prop.cm.

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.