Skip to main content

Security report for ugir.ro

Other · Romania

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Network security and 3 other checks.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website ugir.ro is a minimal informational site primarily featuring an image map linking to language-specific subdomains (Romanian, English, Russian). There is no explicit business description, contact information, or detailed content to define the company's operations or market position. The domain is registered since 2003 with consistent WHOIS data and Romanian nameservers, indicating a legitimate and stable domain ownership. Technically, the site uses WordPress CMS hosted on Romarg servers but lacks modern web features such as HTTPS, security headers, or privacy policies. The content quality and user experience are poor due to minimal content and lack of navigation clarity. Security posture is weak with no visible security best practices implemented. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile due to missing compliance and contact details.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

11 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

  2. 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

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching ugir.ro

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
62
Security headers
35
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
25
Average
45

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

Due to the lack of explicit business information on the website, it is difficult to ascertain the company's market positioning, business model, or revenue streams. The site targets a general audience with multilingual support but does not provide services or products details. The domain age suggests an established presence but the minimal content and absence of contact or legal information limit business credibility. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The business appears to be small and possibly informational or legacy in nature.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is low. There is no evidence of HTTPS/SSL usage, security headers, or incident response policies. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating non-compliance with GDPR or similar regulations. The absence of contact information and security disclosures further weakens the security posture. No vulnerabilities or malicious indicators were detected in the limited content. The site would benefit from implementing basic security controls and compliance documentation to improve trust and reduce risk.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and enhance transparency.
  3. Publish clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for business and security incident reporting.
  4. Introduce security headers and conduct a security audit to identify and remediate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance website content quality and navigation to improve user experience and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a basic informational site with minimal content, primarily an image map linking to different language versions of the site (Romanian, English, Russian). No explicit business description or company name is provided in the content.
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and primarily an image map linking to language-specific subdomains.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms present.
  4. No security headers or HTTPS status available from provided data.
  5. WHOIS data indicates a long-established domain with consistent registration details.
  6. No analytics, advertising, or tracking technologies detected.
  7. Website uses WordPress CMS but no plugins or scripts detected in provided HTML.
  8. No social media links or business contact emails found.
  9. No evidence of adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS and hosted on Romarg servers as inferred from nameservers. The HTML content is minimal with no meta tags, scripts, or analytics detected. There is no evidence of modern frameworks or performance optimization. Mobile optimization and accessibility are poor due to lack of responsive design elements. The site lacks SEO best practices such as metadata and structured data. Technical debt is high given the outdated and sparse content. Modernization opportunities include adopting HTTPS, improving content structure, and adding SEO and accessibility features.
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 ugir.ro. 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 ugir.ro.

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.