Skip to main content

Security report for rendernation.com

rendernation · Other · United Kingdom

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Rendernation operates a website hosted on the Squarespace platform, presenting a professional branding presence with linked social media accounts on Instagram and LinkedIn. The site lacks detailed business descriptions, contact information, and legal compliance pages such as privacy policy or terms of service. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies including HTTPS, Google Tag Manager, and jQuery, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and trustworthiness. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS enabled but missing key security headers and policies. Overall, the site appears functional but lacks critical compliance and transparency elements.

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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

  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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  3. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

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

Keep watching rendernation.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. 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
54
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The website targets a general audience with a focus on branding and online presence rather than explicit product or service offerings. The business model and market position are unclear due to minimal content. The presence of social media links suggests an intent to engage users via Instagram and LinkedIn. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The lack of contact details and legal pages limits business credibility and customer trust. Growth indicators and revenue streams cannot be assessed from the available data.

Security posture

The security maturity level is basic to moderate. HTTPS is properly configured, ensuring encrypted communication. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosures or incident response contacts are provided, limiting readiness for security incidents. Cookie consent is implemented, indicating some privacy awareness. The lack of WHOIS data and transparency about registrant information is a significant concern for trust and legitimacy.

Recommendations

  1. Add a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement standard security headers to enhance protection against web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish clear contact information including business email and phone numbers for customer and security incident communication.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration details to ensure domain legitimacy and transparency.
  5. Enhance website content with detailed business descriptions and service offerings to improve credibility and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
rendernation
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Squarespace, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts, Typekit
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner present

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Squarespace platform with standard templates and scripts.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, which is unusual for an active domain.
  3. No privacy policy or terms of service pages found on the site.
  4. Cookie consent banner is present and functional.
  5. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided on the homepage.
  6. Social media presence includes Instagram and LinkedIn profiles linked.
  7. No security headers detected in the HTML content.
  8. HTTPS is enabled with SSL certificate active.
  9. No forms detected on the homepage for data collection.
  10. No explicit business description or services detailed on the homepage.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Squarespace CMS, leveraging standard web technologies such as jQuery and Google Tag Manager for analytics. The site loads with moderate speed and is optimized for mobile devices. SEO optimization is basic with canonical tags and Open Graph metadata present but lacks advanced SEO features. Accessibility features are minimal. No custom frameworks or backend technologies are detected. Hosting is managed by Squarespace, providing reliable infrastructure but limited customization. The site does not expose sensitive data or use vulnerable libraries based on the provided content.
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 rendernation.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 rendernation.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.