Skip to main content

Security report for strand.com.mt

Strand Palace Agencies Ltd. · Retail · Malta

High risk. 13 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

28/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Strand Palace Agencies Ltd. is a well-established family-owned business based in Malta, founded in 1900, specializing in the distribution, importation, and manufacture of FMCG and confectionery products. The company targets retail and catering sectors, offering a portfolio of international brands. Their website reflects a mature digital presence built on WordPress and WooCommerce, integrating modern web technologies and SEO best practices. Social media engagement is evident via Facebook and LinkedIn, supporting brand visibility and customer engagement. However, explicit privacy and cookie policies are not found, indicating room for improvement in compliance and transparency. Security measures include HTTPS and Google reCAPTCHA, but lack visible security headers and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
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

13 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching strand.com.mt

This scan found 26 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
0
Average
28

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 · found on this site
  • 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 company operates in the retail FMCG sector with a focus on food and confectionery distribution. Their business model revolves around importing and distributing international brands to retail and catering clients. The website showcases partnerships with supplier brands such as Twistees and Strand Meats Ltd., indicating a strong supplier ecosystem. The company maintains a medium-sized operation with a long history, which supports market credibility. The absence of detailed contact information and policies on the website may limit customer trust and regulatory compliance. The digital infrastructure is modern but could benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection, demonstrating basic security hygiene. However, the absence of security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. The lack of a security.txt file or incident response contact information suggests limited readiness for vulnerability reporting and incident handling. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved by implementing recommended headers, publishing security policies, and enhancing transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  3. Add a security.txt file and incident response contact details to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure and incident management.
  4. Ensure visible and clear company contact information including emails and phone numbers to enhance customer support and credibility.
  5. Regularly audit and update all plugins, themes, and scripts to mitigate risks from outdated or vulnerable components.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Strand Palace Agencies Ltd.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Strand Palace Agencies Ltd.
Description
A family owned business, founded in the 1900 which operates in FMCG distribution of best International brands for both retail and catering sector.
Key services
Food & Confectionery Manufacture, Importation, Distribution
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, WooCommerce 9.9.3, Slider Revolution 6.7.29, jQuery, Google Maps API, Google reCAPTCHA, Facebook SDK, Everlightbox, Owl Carousel, Select2, Ion Range Slider, Tooltipster
Frameworks
WooCommerce, WPBakery Page Builder
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Google reCAPTCHA integration
  • Use of Facebook SDK with crossorigin and integrity attributes
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics (gtag.js)
Marketing tools
Google Site Kit
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional WordPress WooCommerce site for a Maltese FMCG distributor
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage HTML
  3. Contact information such as emails or phone numbers not explicitly found in the provided HTML
  4. Social media presence on Facebook and LinkedIn is evident
  5. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices observed
  6. Security headers are not visible in the HTML content; recommend server-side header review
  7. No visible forms except for contact form 7 plugin scripts, but no explicit contact form fields found in the homepage HTML
  8. Google reCAPTCHA is integrated, indicating some bot protection
  9. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with WooCommerce 9.9.3, utilizing popular plugins such as Slider Revolution, WPBakery Page Builder, and various JavaScript libraries for UI enhancements. The site loads multiple external resources including Google Fonts, Google Maps API, Facebook SDK, and Google Analytics, indicating a well-integrated digital ecosystem. Performance is moderate with some optimization potential. Mobile responsiveness and SEO optimization are good, but accessibility features are basic. The technical stack is modern and widely supported, though some technical debt may exist in plugin management and security header implementation.
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 strand.com.mt. 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 strand.com.mt.

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.