Skip to main content

Security report for sc07.dev

GitLab · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website is a self-hosted GitLab instance under the domain sc07.dev, primarily serving as a platform for hosting and exploring open source projects related to the Fediverse and Canvas technologies. It leverages the GitLab platform's capabilities to provide project collaboration and CI/CD catalog integration. The target audience includes developers and open source contributors interested in decentralized social networking and related software. The business model is focused on providing a self-managed GitLab environment rather than a commercial offering. Technically, the site uses modern web technologies including JavaScript, Webpack, Tailwind CSS, and Bootstrap, ensuring good performance and mobile optimization. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though explicit security headers and policies are absent. Privacy compliance is weak due to the lack of privacy and cookie policies and no consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is functional and professional but lacks formal compliance and contact transparency.

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. 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 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

    • 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 sc07.dev

This scan found 18 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
80
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
20
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 sc07.dev GitLab instance occupies a niche position as a self-managed platform for open source projects, particularly in the Fediverse ecosystem. It benefits from association with GitLab Inc. but operates independently. The projects hosted are mostly small with low community engagement, indicating early-stage or personal projects. The absence of business contact details and policies suggests it is not a commercial enterprise but rather a community or individual initiative. The platform supports collaboration and CI/CD workflows, which may attract developers seeking decentralized social software solutions. Growth potential depends on community adoption and project maturity. No evident revenue streams or partnerships beyond GitLab's ecosystem are present.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS enabled and no exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries detected. However, it lacks explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options, which are recommended best practices. There is no published security policy or incident response information, which limits transparency and preparedness for security events. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates compliance gaps, particularly with GDPR. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a self-hosted GitLab instance but could be improved with formal policies and enhanced HTTP headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Add security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Provide clear contact information for business or support inquiries to enhance trust and credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GitLab
Description
sc07 GitLab instance hosting multiple public projects primarily related to Fediverse, Canvas, and related open source software.
Key services
Git repository hosting, Project collaboration, CI/CD catalog integration
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
GitLab, JavaScript, Webpack, Tailwind CSS, Bootstrap, SVG icons
Frameworks
Ruby on Rails (implied by GitLab), Bootstrap
Platforms
Self-managed GitLab instance
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Snowplow, Google Analytics 4
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Snowplow
Marketing tools
Google Analytics 4 (GA4)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a self-hosted GitLab instance focused on Fediverse and open source projects.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the page.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found.
  4. All projects are public and have zero or low stars, indicating a small community or new projects.
  5. No forms collecting personal data detected on the page.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks consistent with GitLab platform.
  7. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  8. Analytics and tracking scripts present but no explicit cookie consent mechanism.
  9. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern tech stack centered around the GitLab platform, utilizing JavaScript, Webpack, Tailwind CSS, and Bootstrap for frontend rendering. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO practices including meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD for breadcrumbs). Performance is moderate, with deferred loading of scripts and lazy loading of images. No CMS is detected beyond GitLab's built-in system. Hosting appears self-managed with no explicit cloud provider identified. Technical risks are low but include the absence of some security headers and formal compliance documentation. The site is well-structured and functional, suitable for its purpose as a project exploration portal.
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 sc07.dev. 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 sc07.dev.

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.