Skip to main content

Security report for sitebuilderhost.net

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Email security, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website sitebuilderhost.net currently presents an access forbidden (403) error page, indicating that the content is blocked by a security mechanism, likely Cloudflare's WAF. Due to this restriction, no business content, contact information, or policy documents are accessible for analysis. The domain is registered with SafeNames Ltd. since 2012, showing a long-term registration consistent with an established entity. The technical infrastructure includes Cloudflare DNS services, but no further technology or CMS details are available due to content blocking. Security posture is limited to the presence of Cloudflare protection, but no security headers or policies are visible. Overall, the site cannot be fully assessed for compliance, security, or business credibility due to the access restriction.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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. 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. 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  3. 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

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

Keep watching sitebuilderhost.net

This scan found 19 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
0
Security headers
70
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
53

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

Given the lack of accessible content, no direct business intelligence can be derived from the website. The domain age and registrar suggest a legitimate registration, but no information about market positioning, services, or partnerships is available. The absence of contact details or policies limits the ability to assess customer engagement or regulatory compliance. The site appears to be either under maintenance, restricted, or protected by security controls preventing public access.

Security posture

The security posture is partially observable through the use of Cloudflare DNS and likely WAF, which is blocking access with a 403 error. No security headers or policies are detected, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The lack of DNSSEC is a minor security gap. Overall, the site benefits from Cloudflare protection but lacks visible security best practices or transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Review and adjust WAF or server settings to allow legitimate user access or provide a user-friendly error page with contact information.
  2. Implement and publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Add clear contact information and business details on the website to enhance credibility.
  4. Enable DNSSEC to strengthen domain security.
  5. Deploy security headers and ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. The page returns a 403 Access Forbidden error with Cloudflare nameservers indicating a Cloudflare WAF or security mechanism blocking access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
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 blocked by a 403 Access Forbidden error page.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the landing page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or data collection mechanisms detected.
  5. Minimal technical metadata and no SEO or accessibility features.
  6. Domain is registered with a reputable registrar and has a long registration period.
  7. Cloudflare is used for DNS and likely WAF protection.
  8. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  9. No social media or external business links found except Google Fonts and Cloudflare nameservers.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses minimal JavaScript and loads Google Fonts from an external source. Hosting and DNS are managed via Cloudflare, which also appears to enforce access restrictions. No CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. The HTML is minimal and serves only an error message, indicating no active content delivery. Performance and SEO are not assessable due to lack of content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic given the simple error page. The technical setup suggests a modern infrastructure but with limited public-facing content.
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 sitebuilderhost.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 sitebuilderhost.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.