Skip to main content

Security report for wellme.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

59/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website 'WellMe' appears to be a basic online presence with limited publicly available business information. The site uses common marketing and tracking technologies such as Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel, indicating some level of digital marketing maturity. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data and lack of contact or policy information raises concerns about transparency and legitimacy. The technical infrastructure includes modern CSS frameworks like UIKIT and Tailwind, but security configurations such as HTTPS enforcement and security headers are not evident from the provided data. Overall, the security posture is weak, and privacy compliance is minimal or absent. Strategic recommendations include establishing clear privacy and cookie policies, improving security headers and SSL configurations, and providing verifiable contact information to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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
    • 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

  2. 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.

  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"

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

Keep watching wellme.com

This scan found 25 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
32
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
58
Average
59

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 business behind the website is not clearly identified, with no registrant or company information found. The site likely operates in the health and wellness sector, possibly leveraging affiliate marketing networks such as ClickBank. The business model appears to be e-commerce or affiliate sales, targeting general consumers interested in wellness products. The lack of detailed business data and certifications limits the ability to assess market positioning or growth indicators. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the data.

Security posture

The security posture is currently weak due to missing WHOIS transparency, lack of security headers, and no visible SSL/TLS configuration details. The site uses tracking scripts which may collect user data without clear privacy disclosures, posing compliance risks under GDPR and other regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are found. The absence of contact information for security incidents further reduces readiness. It is recommended to implement HTTPS, add security headers, publish privacy and cookie policies, and establish incident response contacts.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  2. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  4. Provide verifiable company contact information including emails and phone numbers for support and security incidents.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities and improve overall security posture.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel, Font Awesome, UIKIT CSS, Tailwind CSS
Frameworks
UIKIT, Tailwind
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
ClickBank
Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel
Marketing tools
Facebook Pixel
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is accessible and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable or domain is unregistered
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML content
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses found
  5. Website uses common marketing and tracking technologies including Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel
  6. No explicit or adult content detected
  7. Website design and content quality is basic with limited business information
  8. No security headers or advanced security configurations detected in the provided data
Technical notes

Notes

The website employs modern front-end technologies including UIKIT and Tailwind CSS frameworks, jQuery library, and Font Awesome icons. It integrates marketing and analytics tools such as Google Tag Manager and Facebook Pixel for user tracking and retargeting. The site appears moderately optimized for mobile devices but lacks advanced accessibility features. Performance is moderate with no explicit indicators of slow loading. The absence of CMS or hosting provider information limits deeper infrastructure analysis. Technical debt and modernization opportunities exist in security and privacy implementations.
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 wellme.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 wellme.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.