Skip to main content

Security report for prospero.im

Other · N/a

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

42/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website at prospero.im currently serves as a security verification gateway, employing Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated access. This indicates a protective measure likely implemented to mitigate bot traffic or abuse. Due to this gating, the actual business content is inaccessible, limiting the ability to analyze the company's services, market position, or detailed business information. The page itself is minimal, containing only the necessary elements to perform the CAPTCHA verification, with no visible contact information, policies, or branding elements. Technically, the site uses modern frontend technologies such as Bootstrap 5.3.3 and Google's reCAPTCHA service, indicating some level of technical maturity in terms of frontend frameworks and security tooling. However, the absence of visible security headers and metadata suggests room for improvement in security hardening and SEO optimization. The performance is likely moderate given the use of CDN-hosted resources, but the user experience is limited due to the blocking verification step. From a security posture perspective, the use of reCAPTCHA is a positive indicator of bot mitigation efforts. However, the lack of visible security policies, contact channels for incident response, and absence of privacy or cookie policies highlight compliance gaps. The domain registration is privacy protected, which is common but reduces transparency and trustworthiness. No suspicious patterns were detected, but the limited data restricts a full trust assessment. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, business credibility, and privacy compliance due to the blocking mechanism and lack of visible information. Strategic recommendations include removing or minimizing the gating for legitimate users, publishing comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, adding clear contact and business information, and enhancing security headers and SEO features to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  2. 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

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Critical

      Domain Expired

      Domain expired 162 days ago

      What to do: Renew domain registration immediately

  4. 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"

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

Keep watching prospero.im

This scan found 21 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
85
DNS health
25
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
42

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 · found on this site
  • 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 website being a security verification page, no direct business intelligence can be extracted. There is no information about company name, services, market positioning, or partnerships. The domain uses privacy protection for WHOIS data, which is typical for small or security-focused entities. No social media or contact details are provided, limiting insights into customer segments or growth indicators. The use of Google reCAPTCHA suggests a concern for security and abuse prevention, possibly indicating a service or platform that requires protection from automated traffic.

Security posture

The security posture is partially mature with the implementation of Google reCAPTCHA v3 to prevent automated abuse. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces the overall security hardening. No visible incident response contacts or security policies are published, which is a compliance gap. The domain uses HTTPS (implied by reCAPTCHA usage), but SSL configuration details are unknown. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the limited content. The blocking mechanism itself is a security control but also limits transparency and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add visible contact information including security incident response channels.
  3. Implement and configure security headers to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  4. Review the necessity and configuration of the reCAPTCHA gating to balance security and user experience.
  5. Enhance SEO and accessibility features to improve site discoverability and usability.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security verification challenge using Google reCAPTCHA v3 indicating bot protection or WAF presence. Content is minimal and access is restricted until verification completes. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection
  • Form uses POST method with hidden token field

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a Google reCAPTCHA v3 invisible challenge
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. Minimal HTML content focused solely on bot verification
  5. External resources loaded from trusted CDNs and Google domains
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected beyond reCAPTCHA
  7. No social media or email contact information present
  8. No structured data or metadata beyond basic charset and viewport
  9. No security headers detected in provided data
  10. Page title is 'Security Verification' indicating access gating
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and layout, loaded from jsdelivr CDN, and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot detection. The HTML is minimal and focused on the verification form with a hidden token field. No CMS or backend technologies are detectable from the provided content. External resources are loaded from trusted CDNs and Google domains. The site appears to be mobile responsive at a basic level due to viewport meta tag and Bootstrap usage. No analytics or advertising scripts are present beyond reCAPTCHA. The lack of metadata and structured data limits SEO effectiveness. Performance is likely moderate given CDN usage but user experience is hindered by the blocking verification step.
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 prospero.im. 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 prospero.im.

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.