Skip to main content

Security report for pwhosting.com.au

Other · N/a

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website www.pwhosting.com.au is a minimal WordPress blog installation with default content dating back to 2015. There is no evidence of active business operations, contact information, or professional branding. The site uses an outdated WordPress version (3.8.41) with known security vulnerabilities and lacks modern security headers or HTTPS enforcement indications. WHOIS data is unavailable due to a malformed request response, preventing verification of domain ownership or registration details. Overall, the site appears neglected or abandoned, with low trustworthiness and minimal business presence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

9 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 pwhosting.com.au

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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
46

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 identifiable business information, market positioning, or services are presented on the website. The lack of contact details, privacy policies, or terms of service further indicates the site is not actively maintained for commercial or professional purposes. There are no partnerships or related domains detected. The site likely serves as a placeholder or test environment rather than a functioning business platform.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to the use of an outdated WordPress version, absence of security headers, and no visible HTTPS enforcement. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are found. The lack of WHOIS data further complicates trust assessment. Immediate upgrades and security hardening are recommended to mitigate risks if the site is to be used actively.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade WordPress and all plugins/themes to the latest versions to address known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement HTTPS site-wide with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Introduce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Provide clear business contact information and consider adding a security.txt file for vulnerability disclosure.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
A basic WordPress blog site with default content and no business description.
Content quality
basic
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.10.2, jQuery Migrate 1.2.1, Google Fonts (Lato), Genericons icon font
Frameworks
WordPress 3.8.41, Twenty Fourteen Theme
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a default WordPress installation with minimal content
  2. No business or contact information provided
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No security headers or modern security practices detected
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable or blocked, limiting domain trust assessment
  6. No analytics or marketing tools detected
  7. No social media or external business links beyond fonts.googleapis.com and wordpress.org
Technical notes

Notes

The website runs on an outdated WordPress 3.8.41 platform with the Twenty Fourteen theme. It uses jQuery 1.10.2 and jQuery Migrate 1.2.1, both outdated libraries. External resources include Google Fonts and Genericons icon fonts. The site lacks modern SEO and accessibility features and shows basic mobile optimization. No analytics or marketing tools are detected. The overall technical implementation is basic and requires modernization to meet current web standards and security best practices.
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 pwhosting.com.au. 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 pwhosting.com.au.

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.