Skip to main content

Security report for strava.cz

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website at app.strava.cz/en is a minimal Next.js-based web application with very limited visible content or business information. The site appears to be a frontend application scaffold or a partial deployment without accessible privacy policies, terms of service, or contact details. The technical infrastructure is modern, leveraging React and Next.js frameworks, but lacks visible SEO, accessibility, or performance optimizations. Security posture cannot be fully assessed due to missing headers and SSL details, and no explicit security or incident response policies are found. Overall, the site is accessible and safe but lacks substantive content and compliance indicators, resulting in a low trust and credibility score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

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.

    • 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

    • 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

  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

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  3. 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 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';…

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

Keep watching strava.cz

This scan found 20 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
0
Security headers
30
Email security
60
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
50

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

Due to the absence of business-related content, no clear market positioning, company name, or services are identifiable. The site does not provide contact information or legal disclosures, limiting insights into its business model or target audience. The lack of external links or partner domains suggests limited ecosystem integration. This minimal presence indicates either a development stage site or a restricted access portal without public-facing business intelligence.

Security posture

The security posture is weak based on the available data. No security headers are detected, and SSL configuration details are unavailable. There are no visible forms or inputs to assess secure handling of user data. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates potential compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present, limiting the ability to evaluate readiness for security events.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Implement and expose standard security headers to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  3. Provide clear contact information including support and security incident channels.
  4. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance website content with business information and user-facing policies to improve trust and credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Next.js, React
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly technical scaffolding without visible business or policy information.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content.
  3. No contact information or forms detected.
  4. Site uses Next.js framework and React technology stack.
  5. No external links to third-party domains detected beyond internal resources.
  6. No analytics, advertising, or tracking scripts detected.
  7. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
  8. No business or company information visible in the HTML content.
  9. No signs of adult or unsafe content; site appears safe but lacks substantive content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Next.js and React frameworks, indicating a modern JavaScript-based frontend architecture. The HTML content is minimal and lacks meta tags beyond basic viewport and charset settings. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance is likely moderate given the use of modern frameworks but cannot be fully assessed without loading metrics. Accessibility and SEO optimizations appear basic or absent. No analytics or marketing tools are detected, suggesting limited tracking or user engagement measurement.
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 strava.cz. 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 strava.cz.

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.