Skip to main content

Security report for rtn.ge

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

53/100

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

The website at rtn.ge is currently inaccessible, displaying only a JSON error message indicating an unauthorized token. This suggests the site is either under development, restricted, or improperly configured. The lack of any visible content, metadata, or structured data prevents meaningful analysis of the business or its services. The WHOIS data is suspicious due to a domain creation date set in the future (January 28, 2025), which undermines trust and legitimacy. No contact information, privacy policies, or security measures are evident from the available data. Technically, the site appears minimal with no detectable technologies, scripts, or frameworks. Hosting is provided by Linode as indicated by the name servers. The absence of HTTPS or security headers further reduces the security posture. The website lacks mobile optimization, accessibility features, and SEO best practices. From a security perspective, the site shows critical weaknesses including inaccessible content, no visible security policies, and suspicious domain registration data. These factors combined result in a very low security score and high risk. Without access to actual content or business information, the overall risk assessment is high, and strategic recommendations focus on establishing proper site access, implementing HTTPS, and publishing essential compliance and security documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
Checks completed
6of 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. 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 rtn.ge

This scan found 19 issues across 5 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
52
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
40
Average
53

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 metadata, no reliable business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears newly registered (or with erroneous future date), and no company name, description, or market positioning is available. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or business sectors are identifiable. The absence of contact details or social media presence further limits insights into the company's operations or market presence.

Security posture

The current security posture is poor. The website is inaccessible without proper authorization, indicating possible misconfiguration or restricted access. No security headers or SSL/TLS information is available. The WHOIS data raises concerns due to the future creation date, which may indicate data manipulation or errors. No incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure policies are found. Overall, the site lacks basic security hygiene and compliance indicators.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve the unauthorized token error to allow public access to website content.
  2. Correct the domain WHOIS registration data to reflect accurate creation date and registrant information.
  3. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL certificates and configure essential security headers.
  4. Publish privacy policy, cookie policy, terms of service, and contact information to improve compliance and trust.
  5. Establish incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms to enhance security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is blocked or inaccessible, showing only a JSON error message: {"message":"Unauthorized token!!"} These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
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 an unauthorized token error message.
  2. No metadata, Open Graph tags, or structured data found.
  3. No forms, contact information, or social media links detected.
  4. No scripts or technologies detected from the minimal HTML content.
  5. WHOIS data shows suspicious future creation date.
  6. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  7. No security headers or SSL configuration information available.
  8. Website appears to be under development or improperly configured.
  9. Analysis incomplete due to blocked content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves minimal HTML content with no metadata, scripts, or detectable technologies. Hosting is via Linode as per name servers. The lack of HTTPS and security headers indicates poor technical implementation. No CMS or frameworks are detected. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to inaccessible content. The site requires significant technical improvements to meet modern web standards and security best 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with rtn.ge. 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 rtn.ge.

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.