Skip to main content

Security report for readrelevant.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 3 other checks.

Security score

42/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website at readrelevant.com is currently inaccessible, returning a 403 Forbidden error page which blocks access to any meaningful content. As a result, no business description, contact information, or security policies are available for analysis. The domain is registered since 2016 with Tucows Domains Inc. and uses SiteGround hosting, indicating a legitimate registration and hosting setup. However, the lack of accessible content and security headers severely limits the ability to assess the website's technical maturity or security posture. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no contact or incident response information is available, which are critical for compliance and trust. Overall, the site appears to be either restricted or misconfigured, resulting in a poor user experience and low trustworthiness.

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

11 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 readrelevant.com

This scan found 29 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
35
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 · found on this site
  • 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 blocked content, no direct business intelligence can be derived from the website. The domain age and registrar suggest a legitimate entity, but absence of business details, contact info, or marketing content prevents assessment of market positioning, business model, or target audience. No partnerships or certifications are visible. The site likely serves a business purpose but is currently inaccessible to the public.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully evaluated due to lack of accessible content and absence of HTTP security headers in the provided data. The domain uses nameservers from SiteGround, a reputable hosting provider, which may provide baseline security. However, no SSL/TLS details or security policies are found. The 403 Forbidden response may indicate intentional access restrictions or misconfiguration. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are present. Overall, the security posture is weak or unknown.

Recommendations

  1. Restore website accessibility and resolve 403 Forbidden errors to allow content access.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL certificates and verify proper configuration.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Publish clear contact information including support and security incident response channels.
  5. Deploy standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, etc.) to improve security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website returns a 403 Forbidden error page indicating access is blocked or restricted. No WAF vendor-specific challenge detected but content is inaccessible. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

SEO
poor

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 inaccessible due to 403 Forbidden error.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms detected.
  4. No security headers or SSL details available from provided data.
  5. WHOIS data shows domain is registered and active with no privacy protection.
  6. Site hosted on SiteGround based on nameservers.
  7. No analytics, advertising, or tracking technologies detected.
  8. Website appears to be down or access restricted, limiting analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on SiteGround as inferred from nameservers. The HTML content is minimal and only displays a 403 Forbidden error page with no meta tags, no SEO or accessibility features, and no scripts or analytics. No CMS or frameworks are detected. External resources are limited to Google Fonts. The site lacks mobile optimization and performance indicators due to blocked content. Technical implementation is poor and requires remediation to restore normal operation.
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 readrelevant.com. 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 readrelevant.com.

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.