Skip to main content

Security report for thehackingday.com

The Hacking Day (THD'S) · Education · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Hacking Day (THD'S) operates as an educational platform offering practical cybersecurity workshops and certifications primarily focused on hacking, pentesting, and related security disciplines. The website presents a professional and content-rich interface targeting individuals seeking hands-on knowledge in cybersecurity, supported by regional institutional endorsements. Technically, the site uses a modern front-end stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, and Owl Carousel, with some security measures like Google reCAPTCHA implemented. However, there is no visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers in the provided data, which weakens the security posture. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, as well as lack of explicit contact information, further impacts compliance and trust. Critically, the WHOIS data for the domain is missing or unavailable, raising concerns about domain legitimacy and registration status. Overall, the site is functional and informative but requires improvements in security, compliance, and transparency to enhance trust and reduce risk.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • 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

  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 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 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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

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

Keep watching thehackingday.com

This scan found 25 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. 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
35
Average
47

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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

THD'S positions itself as a niche educational provider in the cybersecurity training market, focusing on practical skills and certifications. Its business model revolves around paid workshops and courses led by experts, targeting learners in Central and South America. The presence of institutional backing and certifications adds credibility. However, the lack of clear company registration and contact details limits business transparency. The website's moderate size and content quality suggest a small but focused operation. The absence of detailed business information and domain registration data may hinder partnerships and customer trust. Growth potential exists if compliance and legitimacy concerns are addressed, alongside enhanced marketing and transparency efforts.

Security posture

The website demonstrates basic security awareness through the use of Google reCAPTCHA to protect forms from abuse. However, the lack of HTTPS enforcement and absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represent significant gaps. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, limiting the ability to report or handle security incidents effectively. The missing WHOIS data raises questions about domain ownership and legitimacy, which is a critical security and trust factor. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS configuration, header implementation, and transparency to meet industry best practices and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce HTTPS site-wide.
  2. Add essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies aligned with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Provide clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers for support and security incidents.
  5. Establish a vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contact channels to improve security transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The Hacking Day (THD'S)
Description
The Hacking Day (THD'S) is a series of practical workshops taught by experts in the field of computer security, focused on hacking techniques, server security, and use of software/hardware tools.
Key services
Practical hacking workshops, Pentesting training, Security certifications, Courses on web, mobile, WiFi security, forensic computing
Content quality
good
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Bootstrap, Owl Carousel, FontAwesome, Google reCAPTCHA, ScrollReveal
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for forms

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on main pages.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly provided.
  4. Social media links present but mostly placeholders except Twitter.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS enforcement visible in provided data.
  6. WHOIS data missing, indicating possible domain registration or privacy issues.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a standard front-end technology stack with Bootstrap for responsive design, jQuery for DOM manipulation, Owl Carousel for sliders, and FontAwesome for icons. Google reCAPTCHA is integrated for bot protection. The site appears moderately optimized for mobile devices and has a clear navigation structure. However, no CMS or hosting provider information is evident. Performance is moderate with no explicit indicators of slow loading but no advanced optimization detected. Accessibility features are basic, and SEO optimization is minimal with no Open Graph or structured data found. The absence of HTTPS and security headers is a technical risk. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but could benefit from modernization and security hardening.
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 thehackingday.com. 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 thehackingday.com.

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.