Skip to main content

Security report for terasbeach.ee

Other · Estonia

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.terasbeach.ee appears to be a small business site based in Estonia, built using modern frontend technologies such as Gatsby and Bootstrap. However, the provided HTML content is largely technical and lacks visible business descriptions, contact information, or policy documents. The site does not present privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, which are critical for compliance and user trust. Technically, the site uses a modern stack but lacks security headers and explicit security policies, indicating a low security maturity level. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, suggesting minimal user tracking. The WHOIS data is consistent with the website's country and domain, indicating legitimacy. Overall, the site scores low to moderate on content quality, security posture, and privacy compliance, with recommendations to improve policy transparency, security headers, and contact information to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 100 · High
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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

    • 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

  2. 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 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';…

  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 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 terasbeach.ee

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
65
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
65

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 business behind www.terasbeach.ee is likely a small Estonian entity with a focus that is not clearly articulated in the provided content. The lack of visible business descriptions, contact details, or social media presence limits insights into market positioning or business model. The site’s technical foundation is modern, which may support future growth or digital marketing efforts. However, the absence of trust indicators such as certifications, testimonials, or detailed company information suggests a nascent or low-profile operation. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries from the domain or content analysis.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak due to the absence of security headers, lack of HTTPS confirmation in the provided data, and no visible security or incident response policies. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files were found, and no contact channels for security incidents are provided. The site does not appear to use any known WAF or security challenge mechanisms, which may expose it to common web threats. The lack of privacy and cookie policies also indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations, increasing legal risk. Immediate improvements in security headers, HTTPS enforcement, and policy publication are recommended.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a strong SSL/TLS configuration to secure data in transit.
  2. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  4. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for general and security-related inquiries.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Gatsby, Bootstrap 5.3.3
Frameworks
React, Gatsby
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no WAF or blocking detected
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links explicitly found in the HTML content
  4. Website uses modern frontend technologies (Gatsby, React, Bootstrap)
  5. No security headers or explicit security policies detected
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected
  7. Content is minimal and mostly technical CSS/JS with no visible business content in provided HTML snippet
  8. WHOIS data is consistent and indicates a legitimate domain registered in Estonia
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern frontend stack using Gatsby and Bootstrap 5.3.3, indicating a React-based static site generation approach. The CSS and JavaScript are well-structured, and the site appears to be mobile-optimized with responsive design elements. However, the lack of detected analytics, tracking, or marketing tools suggests limited digital marketing integration. Performance is likely moderate given the static site framework, but no explicit performance metrics were available. The absence of CMS or backend technologies suggests a static or headless architecture. Technical debt appears low but the site lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features, which could be improved for better user engagement and compliance.
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 terasbeach.ee. 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 terasbeach.ee.

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.