Skip to main content

Security report for wct-2.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

69/100

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

The website at wct-2.com is minimalistic, serving only a JSON status response with no visible business content, metadata, or user-facing information. The domain is relatively new, registered in 2022, and uses Cloudflare for DNS hosting, indicating some level of infrastructure maturity. However, the lack of content, contact information, and policies suggests the site is either under development or not intended for public business use at this time. The technical infrastructure is basic with no advanced frameworks or CMS detected. Security posture is minimal with no DNSSEC and no security headers observed, though HTTPS is presumably enabled given Cloudflare usage. Overall, the site lacks transparency and business credibility indicators, limiting trust and usability.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
Checks completed
6of 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. 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

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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 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

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

Keep watching wct-2.com

This scan found 17 issues across 5 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
75
Email security
60
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
69

Not counted

  • Security headers: 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 absence of business-related content, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be identified. The domain registration data does not provide registrant organization details, and no partner or subsidiary domains are linked. The site does not display any certifications, trust signals, or contact channels, which limits its business intelligence value. It appears to be a placeholder or a backend endpoint rather than a fully operational business website.

Security posture

The security posture is basic with HTTPS likely enabled but no DNSSEC or security headers configured. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, reducing privacy risks but also limiting business insights. The domain registration is straightforward without privacy protection, which is appropriate for transparency but lacks registrant detail. Overall, the site has a low security maturity level and would benefit from implementing standard security best practices and compliance measures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain name system security.
  2. Implement and publish privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and improve user trust.
  3. Add clear contact information including email and phone to improve business credibility and support.
  4. Configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Develop website content and metadata to improve SEO, user experience, and professional appearance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
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 with only a JSON status response.
  2. No metadata, SEO tags, or structured data present.
  3. No contact or policy pages found.
  4. Domain is relatively new and registered with a reputable registrar.
  5. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a security improvement opportunity.
  6. Hosting via Cloudflare nameservers indicates use of CDN and potential security benefits.
  7. No visible security headers or advanced security configurations detected.
  8. No analytics or tracking scripts detected.
  9. No advertising or marketing tools detected.
  10. No social media or external business links found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Cloudflare nameservers indicating CDN and potential DDoS protection. No CMS or frameworks detected, and the HTML content is minimal with only a JSON status message. No scripts, analytics, or tracking technologies are present. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic due to lack of content and structure. SEO optimization is poor with no meta tags or structured data. The technical infrastructure is minimal and could be improved with modern web development practices and security enhancements.
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. 69/100Medium25 findings · partial scanView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with wct-2.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 wct-2.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.