Skip to main content

Security report for stackup.sh

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

61/100

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

The website stackup.sh is currently inaccessible due to a Cloudflare SSL handshake failure (Error 525), indicating a misconfiguration or incompatibility between Cloudflare and the origin server's SSL setup. As a result, the site content is blocked and only an error page is served. No business, contact, or policy information is available on the page, severely limiting the ability to assess the company's operations or compliance posture. The technical infrastructure relies on Cloudflare as a CDN and security provider, but the origin server's SSL issues prevent proper secure access. Security posture is weak due to lack of visible security headers and policies. Overall, the site is non-functional and lacks any meaningful content or trust indicators.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
Checks completed
6of 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. 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Cloudflare

      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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching stackup.sh

This scan found 19 issues across 5 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
75
Email security
60
DNS health
35
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
61

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Due to the lack of accessible content and absence of business information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain appears to be small scale or early stage, but no details on market positioning, services, or partnerships are available. The only external domain referenced is cloudflare.com, which is related to the CDN and security service used. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links are present to indicate active business operations or customer engagement.

Security posture

The security posture is currently poor. The SSL handshake failure prevents secure HTTPS connections end-to-end, which is a critical issue. No security headers or policies are present on the error page. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site is protected by Cloudflare, but the origin server SSL misconfiguration negates this benefit. There is no evidence of GDPR compliance or privacy protections. Overall, the site is vulnerable to service disruption and lacks transparency on security practices.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve the SSL handshake failure by configuring the origin server SSL certificate and cipher suites to be compatible with Cloudflare.
  2. Implement comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Add clear contact information and business details on the website to enhance credibility.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to maintain a strong security posture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Cloudflare detected. The website is showing a Cloudflare 525 SSL handshake failed error page indicating the origin server SSL is misconfigured or unreachable. Content is blocked by Cloudflare. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Cloudflare
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
10/100

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 inaccessible due to Cloudflare SSL handshake failure (Error 525).
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No forms or data collection mechanisms present.
  5. Only external link is to cloudflare.com for error explanation.
  6. No scripts or analytics detected beyond Cloudflare's default.
  7. No social media or marketing tools detected.
  8. Website is not functional and content is minimal.
  9. Analysis incomplete due to WAF/security mechanisms. For accurate analysis, please contact guard@offseq.com.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Cloudflare as a CDN and security provider, but the origin server SSL configuration is incompatible, causing a 525 SSL handshake failure error. The HTML content is minimal and only serves an error message with no metadata beyond basic charset and viewport tags. No CMS, analytics, or marketing technologies are detected. The site lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to blocked content. The technical debt includes misconfigured SSL and absence of security best practices.
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 stackup.sh. 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 stackup.sh.

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.