Skip to main content

Security report for syrio.org

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.syrio.org is built using the Wix platform, leveraging Wix's Thunderbolt framework and standard JavaScript polyfills. The site content appears minimal and lacks critical business and security information. No WHOIS data or registrant details are available due to a malformed WHOIS response, which limits the ability to verify domain legitimacy. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, as well as contact information, further reduces trust and compliance posture. Technically, the site uses modern JavaScript libraries but lacks visible security headers or SSL configuration details in the provided data. Overall, the website's security posture is weak, with no evident best practices implemented. The content is safe for general audiences but is sparse and lacks professionalism.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching syrio.org

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. 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
62
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
69

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 lack of business-related content, contact details, or structured data, it is not possible to ascertain the company's market position, business model, or sector. The site appears to be a small-scale or personal project hosted on Wix without clear business intent or presence. No partnerships, certifications, or trust indicators are present. The absence of analytics or marketing tools suggests limited commercial activity or digital marketing efforts.

Security posture

The security posture is currently low. No HTTPS or SSL details were found in the data, and no security headers are present. The site does not disclose any security or incident response policies. The WHOIS data is unavailable, which is a concern for domain transparency. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were detected. The site lacks privacy compliance indicators such as GDPR notices or cookie consent mechanisms. These gaps expose the site to potential trust and compliance risks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  3. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to improve credibility.
  4. Configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Obtain and publish WHOIS data or ensure domain registration transparency to enhance trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, JavaScript, core-js, focus-within-polyfill, Intl.Segmenter polyfill, Thunderbolt
Platforms
Wix
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

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 is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and polyfills.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain trust assessment.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected in the HTML content.
  4. No contact information such as emails, phone numbers, or addresses found.
  5. No social media links or external business-related links detected.
  6. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected in the provided data.
  7. Website content is minimal or not fully accessible in the provided HTML snippet.
  8. No analytics or tracking services detected.
  9. No advertising or marketing tools detected.
  10. Website content appears safe with no adult or explicit content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Wix's proprietary Thunderbolt framework and includes polyfills for legacy browser support. The hosting is provided by Wix, with static assets served from parastorage.com and wixstatic.com domains. Performance appears moderate but cannot be fully assessed due to partial HTML content. Mobile optimization is basic, with viewport meta tags present but no advanced responsive design features detected. SEO optimization is poor, with no meta description or Open Graph tags found in the provided content. Accessibility features are minimal, and no ARIA roles or landmarks were detected.
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 syrio.org. 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 syrio.org.

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.