Skip to main content

Security report for ufl-football.com

bring the pixel · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

UFL is a niche football fan community website established in 2006, offering football news, user-generated stories, and community forums primarily focused on NFL content. The site operates on a WordPress platform with BuddyPress and other community engagement plugins, targeting football enthusiasts seeking news and discussion. The technical infrastructure is modern for a content site, leveraging AJAX, jQuery, and REST API integrations, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and DNSSEC, indicating room for improvement. Privacy compliance is minimal, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is legitimate and functional but would benefit from enhanced security and privacy features.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. 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

  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 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

  4. 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 ufl-football.com

This scan found 22 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
62
Security headers
55
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
65
Average
60

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 website positions itself as a specialized media outlet for football fans, leveraging community-generated content and editorial news to engage its audience. Its business model appears to be content-driven with potential monetization through advertising or merchandise (store link present). The site has a small but active user base, indicated by comments and member activity. Partnerships or subsidiaries are not evident. The site maintains consistent branding and content quality, appealing to a general audience interested in football. Growth potential lies in expanding community features and improving compliance and security to build trust.

Security posture

The security maturity level is basic. HTTPS is enforced, and domain registration includes protective status flags, but DNSSEC is not enabled, and no security headers are detected in the HTML content. There is no visible incident response or security policy documentation. Forms for login and password reset exist but lack visible advanced protections like CAPTCHA or multi-factor authentication. The absence of cookie consent and minimal privacy compliance pose regulatory risks. No critical vulnerabilities or malware indicators were found, but improvements are needed to align with best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to secure DNS queries and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner to comply with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  4. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information.
  5. Enhance form security with CAPTCHA and consider multi-factor authentication for user accounts.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
bring the pixel
Description
UFL is a football fan community website providing news, stories, and forums related to football, especially NFL.
Key services
Football news articles, Community forums, Member activity streams, User-generated content submission
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Modernizr, Google Fonts, AJAX, REST API
Frameworks
BuddyPress, Snax, MashShare, Whats Your Reaction
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientDeleteProhibited domain status

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
MashShare social sharing
Marketing tools
MashShare
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based football fan community and news platform.
  2. Content is primarily user-generated and editorial football news.
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie consent mechanisms detected.
  4. No direct company contact information or security policies published.
  5. Domain is well aged and registered with protections.
  6. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  7. No suspicious external domains or links found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a WordPress CMS with several plugins including BuddyPress for community features, Snax for content submission, and MashShare for social sharing. The tech stack includes jQuery, Modernizr, and Google Fonts. Hosting details are not explicit but domain registrar is GoDaddy. Performance is moderate with some modern frontend optimizations. Mobile responsiveness is good, but accessibility features are basic. SEO is supported by meta tags and structured data but could be improved. No critical technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected.
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 ufl-football.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 ufl-football.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.