Skip to main content

Security report for smutlegend.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 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 ww1.smutlegend.com/lander currently serves as a domain parking or placeholder page with minimal content and no active business presence. The site lacks meaningful metadata, business descriptions, or contact information, indicating it is not operational as a commercial or service website. The technical infrastructure is minimal, relying on basic React-based static content and external scripts for advertising and consent management. There is no evidence of HTTPS or security headers, which significantly weakens the security posture. The WHOIS data is unavailable or indicates the domain is unregistered or expired, further undermining trust and legitimacy. Overall, the site presents a high risk due to lack of transparency, security, and business credibility.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

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. 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 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 smutlegend.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. 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
77
Security headers
25
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
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

No identifiable business information, company name, or operational details are present on the site. The domain appears to be parked or inactive, with no clear market positioning or target audience. There are no indications of revenue streams, partnerships, or growth strategies. The absence of contact details and privacy policies suggests no active customer engagement or compliance efforts. This domain likely serves as a placeholder or speculative asset rather than an active business entity.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS, lack of security headers, and no visible incident response or data protection policies. No forms or user input fields are present, reducing attack surface but also indicating no active user engagement. The presence of third-party advertising scripts introduces potential privacy concerns without clear consent mechanisms. The missing WHOIS data and domain registration inconsistencies raise suspicion about the domain's legitimacy and increase risk of abuse or phishing if activated without proper controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure all traffic.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms.
  3. Publish clear business contact information and incident response contacts.
  4. Remove parking page content and develop a legitimate business website or release the domain.
  5. Monitor domain registration status and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and complete.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a domain parking or placeholder page for smutlegend.com with no active business content.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, React
Frameworks
React
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
Tracking pixels
TrustArc
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is a domain parking page with minimal content.
  2. No active business or product information present.
  3. No contact or company information available.
  4. No privacy or cookie policy beyond a placeholder link.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available.
  6. WHOIS data is missing or domain is unregistered.
  7. External scripts include Google Adsense and TrustArc consent scripts.
  8. No forms or data collection elements detected.
  9. No social media or contact emails found.
  10. No WAF or security challenge detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses React for frontend rendering with static hosting indicated by wsimg.com URLs. Performance is moderate but limited by minimal content. No CMS or backend technologies detected. SEO and accessibility are poor due to lack of metadata and structured content. External scripts include Google Adsense for advertising and TrustArc for consent management, but no analytics or tracking beyond that. The site lacks modern security headers and HTTPS, exposing it to potential interception or manipulation. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and indicative of a parked domain rather than an active service.
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 smutlegend.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 smutlegend.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.