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)
a(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
b(b) Incident handling: One indicator
c(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
d(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
e(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
f(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
g(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
h(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
i(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
j(j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside
Partly checked
One indicator
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.
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
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"
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.
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.
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
Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and publicly available to improve trust.
Publish comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to comply with legal requirements and build user trust.
Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
Add clear business contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses.
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
Website content is minimal and mostly consists of embedded consent management scripts.
No visible business information, contact details, or policies found.
No WHOIS data available indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
No security headers detected; HTTPS is used but security posture is weak.
No forms or user input fields detected.
External domains are mostly related to consent management and tracking.
No social media or contact emails found.
No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected.
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.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with supaglazing.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review supaglazing.com.