Skip to main content

Security report for theufl.com

The UFL · Media · N/a

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The UFL website serves as an information hub for the United Football League, providing schedules, team details, news, standings, and statistics to football fans and followers of the USFL and XFL conferences. The site also supports e-commerce through a linked merchandise shop and ticket sales, targeting sports enthusiasts and league supporters. The business model centers on media content delivery and fan engagement within the niche sports league market. Technically, the site employs modern frontend technologies including Nuxt.js and Tailwind CSS, with integration of Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile optimized and demonstrates good design and navigation clarity. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, but lacks some security headers and explicit security policies. Privacy compliance is partial, with privacy and terms pages present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. The absence of WHOIS registration data for the domain is a significant concern, impacting the trustworthiness and legitimacy perception of the site. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from improved transparency in domain registration and enhanced privacy and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

3 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.

    • 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. 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 theufl.com

This scan found 20 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
72
Security headers
80
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
78

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 UFL operates in the media and sports sector, focusing on niche American football leagues including USFL and XFL conferences. Its competitive advantage lies in providing centralized, official league information and fan services such as schedules, stats, and merchandise. Revenue streams likely include advertising, ticket sales, and merchandise sales via the partner shop domain. The target customer segment is sports fans and football enthusiasts interested in spring football leagues. Growth indicators include active content updates and integration of digital marketing tools. The partnership ecosystem includes e-commerce platforms and advertising networks. Strategic observations suggest the need for stronger domain legitimacy and enhanced privacy compliance to build greater trust with users and partners.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and no exposed sensitive data in the HTML content. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published security policies or incident response contacts indicate gaps in security best practices. No vulnerability disclosures or security.txt files were found, limiting transparency for security researchers. Compliance with GDPR is partial, with privacy and terms pages present but no cookie consent mechanism detected despite tracking scripts. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not evident from the site content. The missing WHOIS data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and potential risk. Overall, the security posture is functional but could be significantly improved with enhanced policies, headers, and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with GDPR and inform users about tracking.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Consider registering the domain properly or ensuring WHOIS data is publicly available to improve trust.
  5. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The UFL
Description
The UFL website provides information about the United Football League, including schedules, teams, news, standings, stats, and promotional content. It targets fans and followers of the league and its teams.
Key services
League schedules, Team information, News updates, Statistics, Ticket sales, Merchandise shop
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Vue.js (Nuxt.js framework), Tailwind CSS, Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Frameworks
Nuxt.js, Vue.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics (via GTM)
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ad Manager
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenge.
  2. WHOIS data is missing or domain is unregistered, which is unusual for a professional sports league site.
  3. Privacy and terms pages are present and linked.
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the site.
  5. No cookie consent banner detected despite tracking scripts present.
  6. Site uses modern frontend technologies and is mobile optimized.
  7. Advertising and tracking scripts are present but standard for media sites.
  8. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found.
  9. No explicit security or incident response contact information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern frontend technologies, primarily Nuxt.js (Vue.js framework) and Tailwind CSS for styling. It leverages Google Fonts for typography and integrates Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile responsive and demonstrates good accessibility and SEO practices. Performance is moderate, with lazy loading of images and modular JavaScript. No common CMS was detected, indicating a custom or proprietary solution. Hosting provider details are not evident from the HTML content. Technical risks include lack of security headers and missing domain registration data, which could impact operational trust and security posture. Opportunities exist to enhance performance and security through best practices and transparency.
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 theufl.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 theufl.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.