Security report for teamwarfare.net

Technology · N/a

High risk. 17 critical or high findings in Network security, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Team Warfare Ladder (TWL) operates as a specialized esports platform providing ladder and tournament hosting services for competitive gaming communities. The website presents a focused business model targeting esports players and organizers, leveraging modern web technologies and cloud services to deliver its platform. The domain is well-established since 2018, consistent with the business timeline. Technically, the website uses Bootstrap for frontend styling, integrates with Supabase for backend services, and employs Plausible Analytics for user tracking. Hosting is via AWS infrastructure as indicated by DNS records. The site is mobile optimized and offers a good user experience, though accessibility and SEO optimizations are basic. From a security perspective, HTTPS is enabled, but the absence of security headers and DNSSEC reduces the overall security posture. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. Contact and incident response information are not provided, limiting transparency and trust. Overall, the website is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance, security hardening, and clearer contact channels to improve trust and regulatory adherence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view: 58/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed: 7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
(b) Incident handling: One indicator
(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
(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

17 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

Network security
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Telnet
  Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: SMB
  Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL
  Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Oracle
  Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MySQL
  Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: RDP
  Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
  Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Redis
  Port 6379 (Redis) is publicly accessible - Redis - In-memory database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Redis using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB
  Port 27017 (MongoDB) is publicly accessible - MongoDB - NoSQL database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MongoDB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP
  Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
  What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC
  Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint
  What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS
  Port 139 (NetBIOS) is publicly accessible - NetBIOS - Windows file sharing
  What to do: Consider restricting access to NetBIOS or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch
  Port 9200 (Elasticsearch) is publicly accessible - Elasticsearch - Search engine
  What to do: Consider restricting access to Elasticsearch or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - NIS2 21(2)(e)
  - IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
  - NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
  - NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
GDPR outside view
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
- High
  No Cookie Policy found
  GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
  What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
  References
  - ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
- 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
  References
  - GDPR Art. 7
  - ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
  - NIST PT-4: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-4: Consent
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
  References
  - CWE-327
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V12.1.1
  - RFC 8996
  - RFC 7568
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: tls_versions TLSv1.2, TLSv1.3
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-8(1): NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8(1): Cryptographic Protection
- 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
  References
  - CWE-326
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-13: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-13: Cryptographic Protection

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

Keep watching teamwarfare.net

This scan found 32 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: 52
Security headers: 85
Email security: 65
DNS health: 80
Network security: 0
GDPR outside view: 58
Average: 57
After the cap: 49

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 · found on this site
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 teamwarfare.net, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

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

Monitor on Breach

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

TWL positions itself in the niche esports market, offering platform services for ladder and tournament hosting. Its competitive advantage lies in providing integrated tools for esports communities, likely monetizing via platform subscriptions or service fees. The target customers are esports players and organizers seeking streamlined competition management. The business appears small but focused, with no visible parent or subsidiary companies. The use of modern cloud services suggests a scalable infrastructure supporting growth. However, the lack of explicit business and contact information may hinder trust and partnership opportunities.

Security posture

The current security maturity is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, and domain transfer protections are in place. However, the lack of DNSSEC, security headers (such as CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options), and absence of documented security policies or incident response contacts indicate gaps. No known vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The site does not provide a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file, limiting responsible disclosure options. Improving these areas would enhance security posture and compliance readiness.

Recommendations

Enable DNSSEC on the domain to protect against DNS spoofing and improve DNS security.
Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements and implement a cookie consent mechanism.
Add clear contact information including support and security incident response emails to improve transparency and trust.
Consider establishing a vulnerability disclosure policy and hosting a security.txt file to facilitate responsible security reporting.

Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description: Team Warfare Ladder (TWL) is a platform focused on esports ladder and tournament hosting services, providing tools and infrastructure for competitive gaming communities.
Key services: Esports ladder hosting, Tournament hosting, Community management tools
Content quality: good
Branding: consistent

Technology

Stack: Bootstrap 5.3.3, LineIcons 4.0, Supabase (backend service), AWS Route53 DNS, Plausible Analytics, Discord CDN, Imgur CDN
Frameworks: Bootstrap
Platforms: Web
Performance: moderate
Mobile: good
Accessibility: basic
SEO: basic

Security

Observed score

70/100

Good practices seen

HTTPS enabled
clientTransferProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Services: Plausible Analytics
Tracking level: minimal
Privacy practices: poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels: Plausible Analytics
Transparency: basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in the HTML content.
Uses modern frontend technologies and external services like Supabase and Plausible Analytics.
No security headers detected in the provided data; DNSSEC not enabled.
No evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies.
Content is focused on esports ladder and tournament hosting platform.
No adult or NSFW content detected; content is safe for general audiences.

Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern frontend framework (Bootstrap 5.3.3) and integrates with cloud backend services (Supabase). External resources include Discord CDN and Imgur for media hosting, and Plausible Analytics for privacy-focused tracking. DNS is managed via AWS Route53 with multiple authoritative nameservers. The site is mobile responsive and has a clean design. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in SEO and accessibility. No CMS detected, indicating a custom or static site approach. Technical debt appears low but security and privacy implementations require enhancement.

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.

OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Priority findings

Network security

Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

Critical Service Exposed: SMB

Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

Critical Service Exposed: RDP

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Redis

Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS

High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch

GDPR outside view

No Cookie Policy found

No Cookie Consent Banner found

SSL/TLS

Weak Protocols Supported

Weak SSL Key Length

Keep watching teamwarfare.net

Daily monitoring

Full report

Results by check

Security headers, 2 findings, score 85/100

SSL/TLS, 5 findings, score 52/100

Email security, 5 findings, score 65/100

DNS health, 3 findings, score 80/100

Network security, 14 findings, score 0/100

GDPR outside view, 3 findings, score 58/100

NIS2 outside view, Earlier method, rescan for details · not counted in the security score–