Skip to main content

Security report for wemakespaces.archi

MS Group · Real Estate · Czech Republic

High risk. 12 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 4 other checks.

Security score

42/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website wemakespaces.archi represents MS Group, an established architectural studio operating since 1990, specializing in architectural design, urban planning, and realization of residential and public spaces primarily in the Czech Republic. The site is professionally designed with clear navigation and relevant content targeting a general audience interested in architecture and urban development. The technical infrastructure employs modern front-end technologies including Bootstrap, jQuery, and tracking tools such as Google Analytics and Hotjar, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS implied, but lacks explicit security headers and formal privacy or cookie policies, which are areas for improvement. The WHOIS data is malformed and incomplete, limiting domain trust verification, but the website content and social media presence support legitimacy. Overall, the site scores moderately well in content quality, technical implementation, and business credibility, but privacy compliance and security posture could be enhanced.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of wemakespaces.archi. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

12 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. 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';…

  3. 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

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

Keep watching wemakespaces.archi

This scan found 29 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
45
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
42

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

MS Group holds a solid market position as a professional architectural firm with a history dating back to 1990. Their business model focuses on providing comprehensive architectural and urban planning services, targeting clients in real estate development and public infrastructure sectors. The company leverages social media channels for brand presence and uses analytics tools for user insights. The absence of detailed business contact information on the site suggests a focus on direct client engagement through other channels. The firm appears medium-sized with consistent branding and a clear service portfolio. Growth opportunities may lie in enhancing digital transparency and compliance to build further trust.

Security posture

The current security posture shows basic maturity with HTTPS usage and no visible exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries. However, the lack of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No explicit privacy or cookie policies are present, which is a compliance gap under GDPR. Incident response and security contact information are missing, limiting readiness for security events. The use of third-party analytics and tracking tools introduces moderate user tracking, but no advanced privacy controls are evident. Overall, the security culture appears functional but could benefit from formalized policies and technical enhancements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add and configure security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection) to strengthen site security.
  3. Publish clear contact information for security incidents and designate an incident response contact.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries and tracking tools to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and mobile optimization to improve user experience and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
MS Group
Description
Jsme architektonický ateliér fungující od roku 1990. Znáte nás jako profesionály, kteří navrhují, projektují a realizují jedinečná místa k životu, vitální veřejné prostory, urbanistické koncepty čtvrtí i celých měst.
Key services
architectural design, project planning, realization of residential spaces, public spaces, urban concepts
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 2.2.4, Bootstrap 3.3.7, SimpleBar, Slick Carousel, Google Fonts (Work Sans, Roboto), Google Analytics, Hotjar
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by og:url and script sources
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • No vulnerable libraries detected from scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar
Marketing tools
Hotjar
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the main page.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly present in the HTML content.
  4. Social media links to Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn are present and appear legitimate.
  5. Website uses modern front-end libraries and tracking tools.
  6. WHOIS data is unavailable or malformed, limiting domain trust verification.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data; HTTPS usage implied but not confirmed.
  8. Content is professional, relevant, and safe for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a stable and widely supported technology stack including Bootstrap 3.3.7 and jQuery 2.2.4, which are somewhat dated but still functional. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. The site is mobile responsive and uses Google Fonts for typography. No CMS is detected, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Hosting provider details are not available. The site lacks advanced SEO structured data such as JSON-LD. Technical debt is moderate due to older library versions and missing security headers. Opportunities exist to modernize the stack, improve performance, and enhance 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. 50/100Medium33 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with wemakespaces.archi. 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 wemakespaces.archi.

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.