Skip to main content

Security report for softlandings.world

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website '𓆱 softlandings' appears to be a personal or thematic blog with dated posts and minimal business or commercial content. It does not present clear business information, contact details, or commercial services, indicating a small-scale or individual operation. The technical infrastructure is basic, relying on standard HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without detectable CMS or advanced frameworks. The site shows moderate performance and basic mobile optimization but lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Security posture is weak due to absence of HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and privacy policies. The WHOIS data is malformed and provides no registrar or registrant information, limiting trust and verification. Overall, the site is safe for general audiences but lacks professional business and security maturity.

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

6 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 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

    • 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 softlandings.world

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
50
Average
56

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 site does not demonstrate a clear business model or market positioning. It targets a general audience interested in blog content. There are no visible revenue streams, partnerships, or certifications. The lack of contact information and business details limits credibility and growth potential. The site may serve as a personal or hobby project rather than a commercial entity.

Security posture

Security maturity is low. The absence of HTTPS confirmation and security headers exposes the site to potential risks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating non-compliance with GDPR or similar regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are found. The malformed WHOIS data further reduces trust. The site should prioritize implementing HTTPS, security headers, and privacy policies to improve security and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to comply with data protection regulations.
  4. Provide contact information or a contact form to improve business credibility and user trust.
  5. Obtain and publish WHOIS data or use a registrar that provides transparent domain registration information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a personal or thematic blog named '𓆱 softlandings' sharing posts on various dates. No explicit business description or commercial services are presented.
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a simple blog with dated posts and minimal business information.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms present.
  4. No security headers or HTTPS status available from provided data.
  5. WHOIS data is malformed and provides no registrar or registrant info.
  6. No external links except internal site links and feed.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  8. No social media or contact emails found.
  9. No signs of adult or unsafe content.
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses basic web technologies (HTML5, CSS, JavaScript) without detectable CMS or frameworks. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization. SEO and accessibility are minimal but functional. No advanced analytics or marketing tools are detected. The site could benefit from modernization, improved SEO, and accessibility enhancements to improve user experience and reach.
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 softlandings.world. 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 softlandings.world.

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.