Skip to main content

Security report for radiodor.net

Healthcare · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website ww25.radiodor.net appears to be a parked domain primarily serving advertising and related search content focused loosely on radiology and medical imaging keywords. There is no substantive business presence or original content, and the site functions mainly as a monetization vehicle through Google Ads and Bodis domain parking scripts. The WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating the domain is either unregistered or a subdomain with no public registration details, which significantly reduces trustworthiness. Technically, the site uses basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript with embedded Google advertising scripts. There is no evidence of a CMS or advanced frameworks. The site lacks HTTPS and security headers, which is a critical security shortfall. Mobile optimization and accessibility are minimal, and SEO practices are basic at best. From a security perspective, the absence of HTTPS, security headers, and any incident response or data protection policies indicates a low security posture. No forms or user data collection mechanisms are present, reducing immediate risk but also indicating a lack of engagement or business functionality. Privacy compliance is minimal, with only a basic privacy policy page linked but no cookie consent or GDPR compliance mechanisms. Overall, the site presents a high risk from a trust and security standpoint, with critical issues including lack of HTTPS, no registrant data, and no verifiable business information. Strategic recommendations include securing the domain with HTTPS, adding security headers, providing clear business and contact information, and implementing privacy and cookie consent mechanisms to improve compliance and trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

8 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching radiodor.net

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
62
Security headers
20
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
64

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention radiodor.net, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for radiodor.net right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The domain ww25.radiodor.net does not represent an active business entity but rather a parked domain monetized through advertising networks such as Google Ads and Bodis. There is no identifiable company name, registration, or contact information. The business model is domain parking with revenue generated from ad clicks related to radiology and medical imaging keywords. The target audience appears to be users searching for radiology services, but the site does not provide actual services or content. There are no partnerships, subsidiaries, or parent company relationships evident. The lack of business data and WHOIS information suggests this domain is not currently used for legitimate commercial operations.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak. The site lacks HTTPS, which is a critical vulnerability for any web presence. No security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or X-Content-Type-Options are present. There are no visible forms or user input fields, which reduces attack surface but also indicates no active user engagement. No incident response or security policy information is provided. Privacy compliance is minimal, with no cookie consent mechanism detected. The absence of WHOIS registrant data further reduces trust and raises suspicion about the domain's legitimacy. Overall, the site is vulnerable to interception and lacks basic security hygiene.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure all traffic.
  2. Add essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Provide clear and verifiable business contact information and registrant details.
  4. Implement a cookie consent banner and enhance privacy policy to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  5. Remove or replace domain parking content with legitimate business content to improve trust and SEO.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Website appears to be a parked domain with generic content related to radiology services and medical imaging.
Key services
advertising, related search results
Content quality
basic
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, Google Ads, Google AdSense, Bodis domain parking scripts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads, Google AdSense, Bodis
Tracking pixels
Google Ads tracking
Marketing tools
Google Ads scripts
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a parked domain with minimal original content
  2. No business contact information or verifiable company data present
  3. No HTTPS or security headers detected in provided data
  4. Advertising and monetization through Google Ads and Bodis scripts
  5. No forms or user input fields detected
  6. No social media or direct contact links found
  7. WHOIS data unavailable, indicating possible privacy or non-registered domain
  8. No GDPR or privacy compliance mechanisms beyond a basic privacy policy link
  9. No security or incident response information available
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript, primarily serving as a domain parking page with embedded Google Ads and Bodis scripts. There is no detected CMS or advanced web framework. The site lacks HTTPS and security headers, which are critical technical deficiencies. Performance appears moderate but is limited by the advertising scripts. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with minimal responsive design features. SEO is limited to meta description and title tags with no structured data or Open Graph tags. The site relies heavily on external ad networks for monetization and does not collect user data through forms or other mechanisms.
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 radiodor.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 radiodor.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.