Skip to main content

Security report for unos.com

Pizzeria Uno Corporation · Hospitality · United States

Critical risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

23/100

Risk levelCritical

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

Uno Pizzeria & Grill is a well-established restaurant brand known for inventing the original Chicago deep dish pizza in 1943. The website reflects a large hospitality business with a focus on dine-in, takeout, catering, and online ordering services. The brand maintains a consistent and professional online presence with good content quality and clear navigation. However, the technical infrastructure shows some weaknesses, including the absence of HTTPS, which is a critical security flaw. The site uses a variety of modern web technologies and marketing tools but suffers from slow performance and lacks a cookie consent mechanism. Security posture is basic with no valid SSL certificate, no HSTS, and no advanced security headers implemented. Privacy compliance is minimal with a basic privacy policy but no explicit cookie policy or consent. Business credibility is moderate with strong branding and social media presence but lacks explicit contact details on the main page. Overall, the website is functional and professional but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

9 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

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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.

    • 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

  4. 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"

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

Keep watching unos.com

This scan found 18 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
0
Security headers
20
Email security
50
DNS health
50
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
18
Average
23

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

The company operates in the hospitality sector with a strong market position as the originator of Chicago deep dish pizza. Its business model includes multiple revenue streams such as restaurant sales, catering, and online orders. The website indicates a large enterprise with subsidiaries like Pizzeria Uno, Pizzeria Due, and Su Casa. The brand leverages partnerships and maintains active social media channels to engage customers. Marketing efforts include retargeting and tracking via multiple ad networks and pixels. The company shows a mature digital marketing ecosystem but could improve transparency and privacy compliance. The absence of direct contact information on the website may limit customer engagement and trust.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to the lack of HTTPS and a valid SSL certificate, exposing users to potential data interception risks. No advanced security headers or mechanisms like HSTS, OCSP stapling, or session resumption are implemented. The site does not disclose any security policies or incident response contacts, which is a gap in transparency and preparedness. While no known vulnerabilities or malware are detected, the missing HTTPS is a critical issue that significantly lowers the security score. The site uses modern JavaScript libraries and frameworks but does not appear to have implemented best practices for secure web communication.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site immediately.
  2. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to mitigate common web attacks.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user trust.
  5. Publish clear security and incident response policies including contact channels for reporting vulnerabilities.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Apache server technology with Bootstrap and jQuery frameworks for responsive design and interactivity. It integrates multiple marketing and analytics tools including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, and StackAdapt Pixel. The site is mobile optimized and accessible with a Userway widget. However, performance metrics are missing or zero, indicating potential measurement gaps or slow loading times. The absence of a CMS or hosting provider information limits deeper infrastructure analysis. The site uses standard SEO meta tags and Open Graph tags for social media sharing. Technical debt is evident in the lack of HTTPS and security best practices, which should be prioritized to reduce business risk.
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 unos.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 unos.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.