Skip to main content

Security report for utt.pm

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

69/100

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

The domain utt.pm is registered since 2018 and currently active with a registration expiry in 2026. The website content accessible is primarily an XML listing of files stored in a bucket, likely used for backend or development purposes rather than a public-facing website. There is no visible user interface, metadata, or marketing content. The technical infrastructure appears to be hosted on Hetzner servers, with no detected CMS or frameworks. Security posture is weak due to lack of HTTPS and security headers. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no contact or business information is available, limiting trust and compliance. Overall, the site appears to be a technical resource or storage endpoint rather than a commercial or consumer-facing site.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  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 utt.pm

This scan found 16 issues across 4 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
77
Email security
40
DNS health
60
Network security
100
Average
69

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Due to the lack of public-facing content and business information, it is difficult to ascertain the market positioning or business model. The domain may be used for internal or advertising script hosting, as indicated by the file names referencing advertising scripts. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified. The domain age is consistent with a small or medium technical project. No revenue streams or customer segments are evident from the data.

Security posture

The security posture is minimal. There is no evidence of HTTPS, security headers, or published security policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are found. The site exposes a large number of script files, some inactive, which could pose a risk if not properly secured. No sensitive data or credentials are visible, but the lack of security controls is a concern. Compliance with GDPR or other regulations cannot be confirmed due to missing policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure data in transit.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Provide clear contact information including support and incident response channels.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities in exposed scripts and storage.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

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 primarily an XML listing of files in an S3 bucket or similar storage, indicating a backend or development resource rather than a public-facing website.
  2. No visible user-facing content such as privacy policy, contact info, or marketing content.
  3. No forms, scripts, or external links detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. No metadata, Open Graph tags, or structured data found.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available from the data provided.
  6. WHOIS data shows domain is active, registered since 2018, expires in 2026, with Hetzner name servers.
  7. Content appears to be technical and internal, possibly for development or advertising script storage.
  8. No evidence of advertising networks, tracking pixels, or analytics services in the provided content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website appears to be a storage bucket listing with no frontend framework or CMS detected. Hosting is on Hetzner, a reputable provider. The site lacks metadata, SEO optimization, and accessibility features. Performance is likely moderate given the static nature of the content but no explicit performance data is available. The technical setup is basic and may benefit from modernization and improved 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 57/100Medium36 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with utt.pm. 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 utt.pm.

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.