Skip to main content

Security report for rocket.net

Rocket.net · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Rocket.net is a managed WordPress hosting provider targeting agencies, creatives, bloggers, enterprises, and WooCommerce store owners. The company positions itself as a leader in speed, security, and ease of use, leveraging Cloudflare Enterprise CDN and a suite of security features including a website firewall and malware protection. The website content is rich, professionally designed, and well-structured, providing clear information about services, customer testimonials, and multiple calls to action for demos and pricing plans. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern tools such as WP Rocket, HubSpot, and CookieYes for analytics and compliance. However, a critical security gap exists as no valid SSL certificate or HTTPS is detected, severely impacting the security posture. The site uses extensive third-party tracking and advertising networks but maintains GDPR compliance with a cookie consent mechanism. Overall, Rocket.net demonstrates a strong market presence and business credibility but must urgently address SSL/TLS and security header implementations to improve trust and security.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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. 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 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

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

Keep watching rocket.net

This scan found 21 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
50
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
62

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

Rocket.net operates in the competitive managed WordPress hosting market, emphasizing performance and security as key differentiators. Their business model focuses on providing all-in-one hosting solutions with enterprise-grade features, targeting professional agencies and high-volume websites. The company offers a variety of hosting solutions including agency, blog, enterprise, reseller, and WooCommerce hosting. Customer testimonials and Trustpilot reviews reinforce their market position. The use of HubSpot and Google Tag Manager indicates a mature marketing and lead generation strategy. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers on the homepage suggests a preference for controlled contact channels via forms and chat. The company maintains active social media profiles on major platforms, supporting brand engagement and customer support.

Security posture

The current security posture of Rocket.net's website is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is a critical vulnerability for any hosting provider. No security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are present, increasing exposure to common web attacks. While the use of Cloudflare Enterprise CDN and WAF provides some protection, the lack of proper TLS protocols and HSTS reduces overall security effectiveness. The site implements cookie consent and privacy policies compliant with GDPR, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are found on the site. The security score is low, and immediate remediation is recommended to protect user data and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Configure and enable HTTP security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  3. Enable HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce secure connections.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and vulnerability disclosure program to enhance transparency and incident response readiness.
  5. Review and minimize third-party tracking scripts to reduce privacy risks and improve compliance.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress and uses a modern tech stack including Cloudflare Enterprise CDN for performance and security, WP Rocket for caching, and HubSpot for marketing automation. The site loads 72 resources with a page size of approximately 34 KB and a load time of about 6.7 seconds, indicating moderate performance that could be optimized further. The site is mobile responsive and SEO optimized with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). However, the lack of HTTPS and security headers represents a significant technical debt and risk. The site uses lazy loading for images and scripts to improve load times. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but requires urgent security enhancements.
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 rocket.net. 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 rocket.net.

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.