Skip to main content

Security report for shadowinspection.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Shadow Inspection and Testing operates a minimal web presence primarily consisting of a frameset redirecting to a subdomain. The business appears to be newly established in 2022 with no detailed public information about services, contact details, or policies on the main site. The technical infrastructure is basic, hosted via GoDaddy with no advanced CMS or frameworks detected. Security posture is weak due to lack of security headers, DNSSEC, and privacy policies. No analytics or tracking mechanisms are present, indicating minimal digital maturity. Overall, the website lacks content richness, user engagement features, and compliance documentation, which limits trust and credibility. Strategic improvements in security, privacy compliance, and content development are recommended to enhance business legitimacy and user confidence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 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

7 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 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

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

Keep watching shadowinspection.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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
60

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention shadowinspection.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for shadowinspection.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The company appears to be a small entity focused on inspection and testing services, as inferred from the website title and domain name. Market positioning and business model details are not disclosed. The absence of contact information and business descriptions limits competitive analysis. The domain registration is consistent with a new business but lacks registrant transparency. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The business likely targets a niche or local market but requires improved digital presence to support growth and customer acquisition.

Security posture

Current security maturity is low with no evidence of security policies, incident response contacts, or certifications. The domain lacks DNSSEC and security headers, which are basic best practices. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, but the minimal content and lack of forms reduce attack surface. Compliance with GDPR or other regulations is not demonstrated due to missing privacy and cookie policies. Incident response readiness is unknown. The security culture appears immature, necessitating foundational improvements in policy, technical controls, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie policy to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Enable DNSSEC and configure essential security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to strengthen domain and website security.
  3. Add clear contact information including emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility and user communication.
  4. Develop website content with clear descriptions of services, terms of service, and security policies to improve professionalism and SEO.
  5. Establish an incident response process and publish relevant contact channels to demonstrate security readiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Shadow Inspection
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 minimal and consists mainly of a frameset pointing to a subdomain.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms present on the main page.
  4. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  5. Domain is registered with a reputable registrar and is not privacy protected.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  7. No social media or external business links found except registrar and subdomain.
  8. Website lacks SEO and accessibility best practices.
  9. No signs of adult or unsafe content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple HTML frameset pointing to a subdomain, with no detectable CMS, frameworks, or analytics tools. Hosting is provided by GoDaddy, a reputable registrar and hosting provider. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility features, and SEO is minimal with only basic meta tags. No JavaScript libraries or external scripts were detected. Performance is likely moderate given the minimal content, but user experience is poor due to lack of navigation and content. Technical debt is low but modernization opportunities include adopting responsive design, adding structured data, and improving security configurations.
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 shadowinspection.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 shadowinspection.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.