Skip to main content

Security report for supaglazing.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, DNS health and 3 other checks.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.supaglazing.com currently presents minimal content primarily focused on consent management scripts with no visible business information, contact details, or policies. The lack of WHOIS registration data and absence of company details raises concerns about the legitimacy and operational status of the domain. Technically, the site uses HTTPS and a Consent Management Platform but lacks essential security headers and comprehensive privacy compliance features. The security posture is basic with room for significant improvements. Overall, the site appears to be either under development or inactive, limiting its business credibility and trustworthiness.

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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 384-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
  2. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      No Name Servers Found

      Unable to find name servers for domain

      What to do: Configure proper name servers for the domain

  3. 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.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

  4. 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

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

Keep watching supaglazing.com

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. 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
60
Security headers
15
Email security
45
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
55

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention supaglazing.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for supaglazing.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

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, business model, or target audience can be identified. The domain WHOIS data is missing, which is unusual for an active business website. There are no visible partnerships, certifications, or trust indicators. The site does not provide contact information or legal disclosures, which are critical for business transparency and customer trust.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS but lacks critical security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options, which are important for mitigating common web vulnerabilities. The presence of a Consent Management Platform indicates some attention to privacy compliance, but no privacy policy or terms of service are found. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The overall security maturity is low, and the site would benefit from implementing standard security best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available to improve trust.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to comply with legal requirements and build user trust.
  3. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Add clear business contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses.
  5. Conduct a security audit of third-party scripts and improve overall security posture with regular updates and monitoring.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, ConsentManager CMP
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Consent Management Platform implemented

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
ConsentManager
Tracking pixels
ConsentManager tracking pixel
Marketing tools
ConsentManager CMP
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly consists of embedded consent management scripts.
  2. No visible business information, contact details, or policies found.
  3. No WHOIS data available indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
  4. No security headers detected; HTTPS is used but security posture is weak.
  5. No forms or user input fields detected.
  6. External domains are mostly related to consent management and tracking.
  7. No social media or contact emails found.
  8. No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected.
  9. No evidence of adult or explicit content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses JavaScript and integrates a Consent Management Platform from ConsentManager. No CMS or major frameworks are detected. The site loads moderately fast but lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. Mobile optimization is basic. The absence of visible forms or interactive elements limits data collection risks but also reduces user engagement. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not discernible from the provided data. The site would benefit from modernization and improved technical implementation to enhance performance and user experience.
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 supaglazing.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 supaglazing.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.