Skip to main content

Security report for rgisurveys.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.rgisurveys.com currently presents only a security verification page employing Google reCAPTCHA v3, effectively blocking access to any substantive content. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or bot mitigation mechanism preventing automated or unauthorized access. Due to this, no business information, contact details, or policies are accessible, severely limiting the ability to assess the company's market position or services. The WHOIS lookup failed to return any registration data, suggesting the domain may be unregistered, newly registered, or protected by privacy mechanisms, which raises questions about the legitimacy and operational status of the website. From a technical perspective, the site uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for styling and Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection, but lacks visible security headers, HTTPS confirmation, or SEO and accessibility optimizations. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, contact information, and business details further diminishes the site's credibility and compliance posture. Security-wise, while the use of reCAPTCHA is a positive measure against automated abuse, the lack of HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and visible security best practices is concerning. The domain's WHOIS data absence and the blocking of content behind a security challenge suggest a low trustworthiness level. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, technical implementation, security posture, privacy compliance, and business credibility. Strategically, it is recommended to verify domain registration status, ensure HTTPS and security headers are properly configured, provide transparent privacy and cookie policies, and make business and contact information accessible to improve trust and compliance. Until these improvements are made, the site remains inaccessible for meaningful analysis and poses a risk of being perceived as suspicious or untrustworthy.

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. 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

      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. 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

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

Keep watching rgisurveys.com

This scan found 24 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
63

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 lack of accessible content and absence of WHOIS registration data, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears inactive or protected by aggressive security measures. No information about market positioning, competitive advantages, revenue streams, or partnerships is available. The website does not disclose any business model or target customer segments. The lack of transparency and content suggests the site is either under development, abandoned, or used for limited internal purposes.

Security posture

The current security posture is minimal and incomplete. The site employs Google reCAPTCHA v3 to mitigate automated access, which is a positive security control. However, there is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement, security headers, or other common security best practices. The absence of privacy policies and contact channels for incident response further weakens the security maturity. The domain's WHOIS data is missing, which complicates trust verification and incident handling. Overall, the security posture is weak and requires significant improvements to meet standard compliance and protection levels.

Recommendations

  1. Verify and update domain registration information to ensure legitimacy and transparency.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  5. Provide accessible business contact information including support and security incident contacts.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is a security verification page with Google reCAPTCHA v3 and no accessible content, indicating a WAF or bot protection mechanism is active. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap 5.3.3, Google reCAPTCHA v3
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked behind a Google reCAPTCHA v3 security verification page.
  2. No actual business content or navigation is accessible.
  3. No contact information, policies, or business details are present.
  4. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
  5. Technical stack is minimal, using Bootstrap and Google reCAPTCHA only.
  6. No SEO or accessibility optimizations detected.
  7. No security headers or HTTPS information available.
  8. No external business-related domains linked.
  9. No advertising or analytics services detected beyond Google reCAPTCHA.
  10. Content safety is rated safe due to lack of content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Bootstrap 5.3.3 for responsive styling and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection. No CMS or backend platform is detectable from the provided data. The site is currently blocked behind a security verification page, limiting content delivery and user interaction. No performance metrics are available, but the minimal content suggests fast loading times. SEO and accessibility features are lacking, and no analytics or marketing tools are detected beyond reCAPTCHA. The technical infrastructure appears basic and focused solely on security verification rather than content delivery.
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 rgisurveys.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 rgisurveys.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.