Skip to main content

Security report for tuli.sk

Other · Slovakia

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.tuli.sk appears to be a Slovak commercial site with a focus on retail or ecommerce, as inferred from the use of tracking tools and cookie consent mechanisms. The site employs modern analytics and error tracking technologies such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Sentry, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. However, the absence of visible privacy policies, terms of service, and explicit contact information limits the transparency and trustworthiness of the business. The domain uses WHOIS privacy protection, which is common for small businesses but reduces registrant visibility. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but lacking explicit security headers and vulnerability disclosures. Overall, the site is accessible without WAF or blocking mechanisms and presents safe content for general audiences.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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 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 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • 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

      • 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

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

Keep watching tuli.sk

This scan found 16 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
65
Security headers
90
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
73
Average
67

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.tuli.sk is likely a small Slovak retail or ecommerce entity, targeting general consumers in Slovakia. The lack of detailed business information, such as company registration or VAT numbers, suggests a smaller scale operation. The use of third-party cookie consent and analytics tools indicates awareness of compliance and marketing needs, though formal policies are missing. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the site content. The business model appears to be direct online sales or service provision, but specifics are not disclosed. Growth indicators and competitive positioning cannot be assessed due to limited data.

Security posture

Security maturity is basic to moderate. The site uses HTTPS and integrates Sentry for error monitoring, which is positive. However, there is no evidence of comprehensive security headers, vulnerability disclosure policies, or incident response contacts. The absence of privacy and terms policies is a compliance gap, especially under GDPR. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The site would benefit from enhanced security best practices and transparency to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and tracking tools to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Sentry, Cookienovo Cookie Consent
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
50/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • Sentry error tracking with low sample rate

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Heureka tracking
Marketing tools
Cookienovo Cookie Consent
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern JavaScript libraries and tracking tools.
  2. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via third-party service.
  3. No visible privacy policy or terms of service pages found.
  4. No explicit contact information or business registration details found in content.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information present.
  6. Website content is in Slovak language and appears to be commercial.
  7. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  8. WHOIS data is privacy protected, limiting registrant transparency.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Sentry for analytics and error tracking. Cookie consent is managed via a third-party service (cookienovo.com). The site appears to be mobile optimized with good navigation and design quality. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts. No CMS or hosting provider details were identified from the content. Accessibility features are basic, and SEO optimization is minimal with no structured data or Open Graph tags detected in the provided content. Technical debt appears low but could be improved with enhanced metadata and security configurations.
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 tuli.sk. 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 tuli.sk.

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.