Skip to main content

Security report for reclaimhosting.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website reclaimhosting.com currently presents a security challenge page that blocks direct access to its main content, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or similar security mechanism, specifically BitNinja. This limits the ability to fully analyze the website's content and business information. The domain is registered since 2013 with a reputable registrar and has a long registration period, suggesting legitimacy. However, the visible HTML content reveals outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5), which are unsupported and pose security risks. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are found, nor is there any contact or business information visible on the page. The website's technical infrastructure appears to be hosted on AWS, inferred from the nameservers. Overall, the site shows poor content quality and minimal user experience due to the blocking mechanism and lack of visible content.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

7 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 reclaimhosting.com

This scan found 25 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
72
Security headers
20
Email security
65
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
65

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 WAF challenge page, detailed business intelligence is limited. The domain age and registrar data suggest an established entity, but no explicit company name, business model, or sector information is available from the content. The presence of Joomla and WordPress meta tags indicates the site may have been built or managed using these CMS platforms, but the versions are outdated. No contact details, certifications, or trust indicators are present. The external link to BitNinja suggests a partnership or use of their security services. No advertising or analytics tools are detected, indicating minimal marketing or tracking activity.

Security posture

The website employs a security challenge page powered by BitNinja, indicating an active WAF or security protection layer. However, the lack of DNSSEC, absence of security headers in the HTML, and use of outdated CMS versions represent significant security concerns. No visible HTTPS enforcement or HSTS headers are detected in the provided content. The domain status clientTransferProhibited is a positive indicator against unauthorized domain transfers. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved by updating CMS software, enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, and publishing clear security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to improve DNS security.
  2. Upgrade Joomla and WordPress installations to supported, secure versions.
  3. Implement HTTPS with HSTS and ensure all content is served securely.
  4. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  5. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page shows a security check with automatic redirect and BitNinja security check banner, indicating WAF or security challenge blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
Joomla!
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Client transfer prohibited domain status
  • Use of BitNinja security check

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 blocked by a security check page with automatic redirect.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content.
  3. No contact information or business details visible on the page.
  4. Outdated CMS versions indicated in meta tags (Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5) which are unsupported and pose security risks.
  5. Use of BitNinja security service for protection.
  6. No visible analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  7. No social media or email contacts found.
  8. No logos or branding images found in the HTML content.
  9. Page content is minimal and primarily a security challenge placeholder.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are outdated and unsupported, posing security and compatibility risks. Hosting appears to be on AWS infrastructure based on DNS nameservers. The HTML content is minimal and primarily a security challenge page with JavaScript-based redirect and browser integrity checks. No modern analytics, advertising, or tracking scripts are detected. The site lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. Performance is likely moderate due to AWS hosting but cannot be fully assessed due to content blocking. The technical debt is high due to outdated CMS and missing modern security 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 65/100Medium34 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with reclaimhosting.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 reclaimhosting.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.