Skip to main content

Security report for team4ukraine.eu

Non-profit · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

79/100

Risk levelLow

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

Team 4 Ukraine is a website representing a non-profit initiative focused on supporting Ukraine. The website's content is minimal but consistent with its stated purpose, featuring a clear title and description. The site uses modern web technologies including CMS Nette, Bootstrap, and Google Tag Manager, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Cookie consent is managed via Cookiebot, demonstrating awareness of privacy compliance requirements. However, the absence of a dedicated privacy policy, terms of service, and contact information limits the site's transparency and trustworthiness. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but lacking explicit security headers and incident response information. Overall, the site is accessible and functional but would benefit from enhanced compliance documentation and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
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

3 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 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
    • 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. 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 256-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

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

Keep watching team4ukraine.eu

This scan found 16 issues across 5 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
75
Security headers
45
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
79

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

The website targets a general audience interested in supporting Ukraine, likely donors and volunteers. The business model appears to be non-profit or charitable, with payment processing facilitated through PayPal. The lack of detailed business information, contact details, or certifications suggests a small-scale operation. The site leverages partnerships with established services like PayPal and Google for payments and analytics. Growth indicators and market positioning are not explicitly stated, but the branding consistency and use of professional tools indicate a credible presence within its niche.

Security posture

The security maturity level is basic to moderate. HTTPS is used, and cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot, which is a positive privacy compliance indicator. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces protection against common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies are published, limiting transparency in security management. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The site would benefit from implementing additional security headers and publishing security policies to improve its security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy page detailing data collection, usage, and user rights.
  2. Add a terms of service page to clarify user agreements and liabilities.
  3. Implement and configure security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for support and security incidents.
  5. Develop and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response plan to enhance trust and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
Team 4 Ukraine
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Bootstrap, Swiper, Toastr, Google Fonts
Frameworks
CMS Nette
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage (implied by https URL)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Ad networks
Google
Tracking pixels
Cookiebot
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses Cookiebot for cookie consent management.
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found in the HTML content.
  4. Website uses CMS Nette framework.
  5. External links primarily to Google services and PayPal for payment processing.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. No explicit security headers detected in provided data.
  8. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including CMS Nette, Bootstrap for styling, Swiper for sliders, Toastr for notifications, and Google Fonts for typography. Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot are integrated for analytics and cookie consent management respectively. The site appears mobile-optimized with responsive meta tags and CSS frameworks. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of scripts. No explicit hosting provider information is available from the HTML content. Accessibility features are basic, with some ARIA roles used in the cookie consent dialog. SEO optimization is basic with meta description and Open Graph tags present but minimal. Overall, the technical infrastructure is sound but could be enhanced with improved accessibility and SEO practices.
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 team4ukraine.eu. 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 team4ukraine.eu.

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.