Skip to main content

Security report for smallbusinesscommunity.org

Other · United States

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at smallbusinesscommunity.org/lander is currently a minimal content placeholder or parking page with no substantive business information or user engagement features. The domain is registered since 2012 with privacy protection via Domains By Proxy, LLC, and hosted through GoDaddy.com, LLC. The site uses Google Adsense for advertising but lacks any privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, and no contact or social media information is present. Technically, the site loads JavaScript resources and uses a proprietary 'PW' system, but no CMS or advanced frameworks are detected. Security posture is weak due to lack of visible security headers and no DNSSEC enabled. Overall, the site appears underdeveloped or inactive from a business perspective.

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

8 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. 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching smallbusinesscommunity.org

This scan found 24 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
25
Email security
60
DNS health
75
Network security
100
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 domain's long registration age suggests potential for a legitimate business, but the absence of any business details, contact information, or content indicates it is not actively representing a business currently. No competitive advantages or market positioning can be discerned. The business model appears to be non-existent or dormant, with revenue possibly generated only through advertising. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated.

Security posture

Security maturity is low with no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers. The domain lacks DNSSEC, and privacy protection obscures registrant details, which is common but reduces transparency. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site does not collect user data via forms, reducing attack surface but also limiting business functionality. Overall, the security posture is minimal and would benefit from standard best practices implementation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Add clear contact information and business details to improve trust and credibility.
  5. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain name system security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Frameworks
PW (Presumed from window.LANDER_SYSTEM)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Adsense
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 appears to be a placeholder or parking page.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. Uses Google Adsense for advertising.
  5. Domain is privacy protected and registered with GoDaddy since 2012.
  6. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement information available from provided data.
  7. No forms or user input fields detected.
  8. No social media or external business-related links found except for ads and domain control nameservers.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic JavaScript and CSS resources loaded from wsimg.com, indicating a parking or landing page service. The presence of Google Adsense scripts suggests monetization via ads. No CMS or advanced frameworks detected. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content but could be improved with better optimization. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic due to lack of content and structure. SEO is poor as no meta tags or structured data are present. The domain is hosted by GoDaddy, a reputable provider, but no further hosting details are available.
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 smallbusinesscommunity.org. 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 smallbusinesscommunity.org.

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.