Skip to main content

Security report for pwc.rs

Other · Serbia

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at pwc.rs currently serves a security challenge page that blocks direct access to content, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism. The domain is registered since 2008 to a Serbian ISP, BeotelNet-ISP d.o.o., but there is no direct evidence that this domain is officially operated by PwC or its Serbian branch. The visible content is minimal, showing only a redirect countdown and a browser integrity check script, with no business or contact information available. The site uses outdated CMS technologies (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are no longer supported and pose security risks. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are found, and no HTTPS or security headers information is available from the provided data.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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. 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

  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 pwc.rs

This scan found 27 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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
40
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
57

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 lack of accessible content and absence of official business information, it is not possible to ascertain the company's market positioning, business model, or key services from the website. The domain registration to an ISP rather than PwC or a related entity raises questions about the legitimacy or official status of this domain. No contact details, certifications, or trust indicators are present to support business credibility. The website appears to be either under maintenance, misconfigured, or protected by a security service that restricts access.

Security posture

The security posture is weak based on the visible data. The site lacks DNSSEC, uses outdated CMS versions vulnerable to exploits, and does not show evidence of HTTPS or security headers. The presence of a security challenge page suggests some level of protection, but the lack of modern security best practices and visible policies indicates a low maturity level. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The overall security score is low, and the site is at risk of vulnerabilities due to outdated software and missing protections.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade CMS platforms to supported, secure versions to reduce vulnerability exposure.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and configure strong TLS settings.
  3. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to improve DNS security.
  4. Add and publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and transparency.
  5. Provide clear business contact information and official branding to enhance trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security challenge page with automatic redirect and browser integrity check, indicating WAF or security protection blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Browser integrity check script
  • Automatic redirect with countdown

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 blocked behind a security challenge page
  2. No visible business or contact information
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms policies found
  4. Outdated CMS technologies detected
  5. No HTTPS or security headers information available
  6. WHOIS data shows domain registered to ISP, not PwC entity
  7. External link to BitNinja.io security service
  8. Page uses JavaScript for redirect and browser integrity checks
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses very outdated CMS technologies (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are no longer supported and pose significant security risks. The hosting provider is BeotelNet-ISP d.o.o., a Serbian ISP, consistent with the domain registration. The site employs JavaScript-based browser integrity checks and an automatic redirect mechanism, likely part of a security challenge or WAF. No modern frameworks or analytics services are detected. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features, and SEO is minimal due to the lack of content and meta tags. Performance is likely slow due to the challenge page and outdated infrastructure.
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 pwc.rs. 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 pwc.rs.

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.