Skip to main content

Security report for realvitalize.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 2 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at realvitalize.com appears to be a small business or startup established around 2019, likely operating in the real estate or home improvement sector based on domain name and minimal content clues. The site uses modern frontend technologies such as React and Material-UI and is hosted on infrastructure managed by Amazon AWS DNS services. However, the website lacks comprehensive business information, contact details, and formal privacy or cookie policies, which limits its credibility and compliance posture. Security measures such as DNSSEC and security headers are not implemented, and no incident response or security policies are published. Overall, the site demonstrates basic technical implementation but requires significant improvements in privacy, security, and business transparency to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

2 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 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. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching realvitalize.com

This scan found 20 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
67
Security headers
45
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
74

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

The business behind realvitalize.com is likely focused on real estate or property renovation services, targeting homeowners or property investors. The domain age and registrar information are consistent with a legitimate small business. However, the lack of detailed business descriptions, contact information, and certifications suggests a limited market presence and early-stage digital maturity. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The business model appears to be direct service provision, but details are sparse. The absence of marketing or analytics tools indicates minimal digital marketing efforts.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is basic and lacks several best practices. HTTPS status is unknown from the provided data, but DNSSEC is not enabled, which weakens DNS security. No security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are detected. There is no visible privacy policy or cookie consent mechanism, indicating potential GDPR non-compliance. No incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure policies are published. The site uses TrustArc for consent management scripts, but no active consent banner was detected. Overall, the site is vulnerable to common web security risks and lacks transparency in data protection practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy with GDPR compliance
  2. Enable DNSSEC to improve DNS security and integrity
  3. Add standard security headers to protect against common web vulnerabilities
  4. Publish clear contact information including support and incident response channels
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities and improve SSL/TLS configuration
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
React, Material-UI, AWS DNS
Frameworks
React
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
trustarc
Marketing tools
TrustArc
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security challenges
  2. No explicit privacy policy, cookie policy, or terms of service found in the provided HTML content
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly found
  4. Website uses React and Material-UI for frontend framework and styling
  5. DNS is managed by Amazon AWS DNS services but DNSSEC is not enabled
  6. No security headers detected in the provided data
  7. No explicit security or incident response policies found
  8. Minimal external tracking detected (TrustArc for consent management)
  9. Website content and metadata are minimal and lack detailed business or compliance information
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using React and Material-UI, indicating a modern frontend framework and component-based design. Hosting appears to be on Amazon AWS infrastructure, providing scalability and reliability. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO optimization is minimal with limited meta tags and structured data. There is no detected CMS, suggesting a custom or static site build. The site lacks advanced analytics or marketing integrations, indicating low digital marketing maturity. Technical debt appears low but the absence of security best practices and compliance documentation represents a risk to business operations.
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 realvitalize.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 realvitalize.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.