Skip to main content

Security report for recallrtr.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website recallrtr.com is currently inaccessible due to permission restrictions, displaying a minimal HTML page stating 'You do not have permission to view this directory or page.' This indicates that the site content is blocked, possibly by a web application firewall or server configuration, preventing any meaningful content or metadata extraction. Consequently, no business, contact, or security-related information is available for analysis. The lack of accessible content severely limits the ability to assess the company's market position, services, or technical infrastructure. From a security perspective, the absence of visible security headers, SSL details, or compliance policies suggests an unknown security posture. Overall, the site cannot be properly evaluated in its current state, and the risk assessment remains incomplete.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 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

5 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. 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

    • 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

  3. 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 recallrtr.com

This scan found 17 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
82
Security headers
95
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
75

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 blocked content, no business intelligence data such as company name, industry, target audience, or business model could be extracted. There is no evidence of partnerships, certifications, or market positioning. The absence of contact information and policies further limits insights into the company's operations or credibility.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be accurately assessed because the website content is inaccessible. No security headers, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosures are present. The lack of HTTPS confirmation and security best practices information is a concern. Without access to the site or WHOIS data, it is impossible to evaluate compliance with GDPR or other regulations. The site may be protected by a security mechanism, but this cannot be confirmed definitively.

Recommendations

  1. Investigate and resolve the permission restrictions to allow access to the website content for proper analysis.
  2. Ensure that the website uses HTTPS with valid SSL certificates and implements standard security headers.
  3. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Provide accessible contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses.
  5. Implement and disclose a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contacts to enhance security transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Minimal HTML content with message 'You do not have permission to view this directory or page.' indicates access is blocked or restricted, likely by a security mechanism or server configuration. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
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 permission restrictions.
  2. No metadata, scripts, forms, or external links detected in the HTML content.
  3. No contact information or business details available on the accessible page.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No security or incident response information available.
  6. No visible security headers or SSL configuration details provided.
  7. Unable to assess technical stack or CMS due to lack of content.
  8. No analytics or advertising technologies detected.
  9. Website quality and trustworthiness cannot be established due to blocked content.
  10. WHOIS data was indicated as available but not provided for analysis.
Technical notes

Notes

No technical details could be extracted from the provided HTML content due to the access restriction. There is no indication of the technology stack, CMS, hosting provider, or performance characteristics. The minimal HTML suggests either a default server error page or a security block. Without further data, no technical modernization or risk assessment can be performed.
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 recallrtr.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 recallrtr.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.