Skip to main content

Security report for pva.net

Precision Valve & Automation, Inc. · Manufacturing · United States

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Precision Valve & Automation, Inc. (PVA) is a medium-sized manufacturing company specializing in precision fluid dispensing, selective conformal coating, and custom automation equipment. The company positions itself as a leader in its niche, serving global manufacturers with a comprehensive product and service offering. Their website reflects a professional and well-structured digital presence, leveraging WordPress CMS with advanced plugins and integrations for marketing, analytics, and user engagement. However, a critical security gap exists due to the absence of a valid SSL/TLS certificate, exposing users to potential risks and undermining trust. While privacy compliance is well addressed through cookie consent mechanisms and a comprehensive privacy policy, the lack of HTTPS significantly impacts the overall security posture. Strategic improvements in SSL implementation and security policy transparency are recommended to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
33/ 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. 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. 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';…

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

Keep watching pva.net

This scan found 18 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
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
33
Average
47

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

PVA operates primarily in the manufacturing sector, targeting industrial clients requiring high-precision dispensing and coating solutions. Their business model includes direct sales, custom automation services, and an eShop for consumables and equipment. The company maintains active engagement with customers via multiple contact forms, social media channels, and a support portal. Marketing and analytics tools such as Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Heap Analytics, and Segment indicate a mature approach to customer insights and digital marketing. The website content is rich, relevant, and professionally presented, supporting strong brand consistency and market positioning.

Security posture

The website demonstrates some security best practices such as the use of reCAPTCHA v3 on forms and cookie consent compliance. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support is a critical vulnerability that severely undermines the security posture. No advanced security headers or TLS protocols are enabled, and no incident response or security policy information is publicly available. This exposes the site and its users to risks including data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues is essential. Additionally, publishing a security policy and incident response contacts would improve transparency and trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) and disable deprecated protocols to enhance security.
  3. Configure security headers such as HSTS, Content Security Policy, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  5. Regularly audit and update all plugins and third-party libraries to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS hosted on WP Engine with Google Cloud infrastructure and Cloudflare CDN. It uses modern web technologies including NitroPack for optimization, Gravity Forms for data collection, and multiple analytics and marketing integrations. The site is mobile-optimized with good accessibility and SEO practices, including structured data (JSON-LD) and Open Graph metadata. Performance metrics were not available, but the use of NitroPack and CDN suggests a focus on speed. The main technical risk is the lack of SSL/TLS, which impacts security and SEO rankings. The site architecture and technology stack are modern and well-maintained otherwise.
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 pva.net. 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 pva.net.

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.