Skip to main content

Security report for siva.pt

Other · Portugal

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website siva.pt, titled 'SivaOnline', appears to be a small business site based in Portugal. The content is minimal and primarily technical, focusing on cookie consent and analytics integration. The site uses modern technologies such as Google Tag Manager, OneTrust for cookie consent, and D3.js for data visualization. However, there is a lack of explicit business information, contact details, and privacy or terms of service policies, which limits transparency and user trust. The technical infrastructure is moderately modern but lacks visible security headers and comprehensive privacy compliance indicators. Overall, the security posture is average with room for improvement in policy disclosures and security best practices. The domain registration data is consistent with the website's country and business presence, supporting legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing privacy disclosures, adding contact information, and implementing security headers to improve trust and compliance.

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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Google Analytics, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

  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.

    • 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 siva.pt

This scan found 17 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
82
Security headers
85
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
76

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 business behind siva.pt is not explicitly described in the content, and no company name or detailed services are presented. The site targets a general audience with a focus on compliance with cookie regulations, suggesting a business model that values regulatory adherence. The lack of detailed business information and contact data limits assessment of market positioning and competitive advantages. The use of Google Tag Manager and OneTrust indicates an awareness of digital marketing and privacy compliance trends. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the content. The site likely serves as an informational or service portal with a small-scale operation.

Security posture

Security analysis reveals the presence of HTTPS, which is mandatory for secure communications. The site implements a cookie consent mechanism via OneTrust, indicating some level of privacy compliance. However, no security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, or X-Content-Type-Options were detected, which are important for mitigating common web vulnerabilities. No forms or input fields were found, reducing the attack surface but also limiting user interaction. The absence of explicit privacy and security policies is a compliance gap. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were identified in the provided content. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by adopting additional security best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to enhance transparency and compliance.
  2. Add clear and accessible contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident reporting.
  3. Deploy standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen security posture.
  4. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate any potential vulnerabilities, especially if forms or user inputs are added in the future.
  5. Enhance website content quality and business information to improve user trust and SEO performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent, D3.js, Roboto Google Fonts, Material Icons, AOS (Animate On Scroll)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL https://)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via Google Tag Manager)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern tracking and cookie consent technologies.
  2. No explicit privacy or terms of service policies found on the main page.
  3. No contact information or business details explicitly presented in the HTML content.
  4. Website content is minimal and mostly technical scripts and cookie consent related.
  5. No security headers detected in provided data; SSL status unknown but URL is HTTPS.
  6. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  7. External domains are mostly trusted CDNs and analytics providers.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with Google Fonts (Roboto), Material Icons, and AOS for animations. It integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics and OneTrust for cookie consent management, reflecting compliance with GDPR cookie regulations. The inclusion of D3.js libraries suggests potential data visualization features. The site appears to be single-page application style with minimal content visible in the HTML snippet. Performance is likely moderate given the use of external CDNs and asynchronous script loading. Mobile optimization is good as indicated by viewport meta tags and responsive CSS. Accessibility is basic with some focus outlines and semantic HTML elements. SEO optimization is basic with a title tag but no meta description or Open Graph tags detected in the snippet. Hosting provider and CMS are not identifiable from the content provided.
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 siva.pt. 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 siva.pt.

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.