Skip to main content

Security report for wgntv.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.wgntv.com is currently inaccessible due to a bot mitigation challenge page implemented by PerimeterX, which blocks access until the user completes a captcha verification. This prevents retrieval of any meaningful business, contact, or content information. The WHOIS lookup for the domain returned no registration data, indicating the domain may be unregistered, privacy protected, or the WHOIS server is restricting access. Due to these factors, the website's business profile, technical infrastructure, and security posture cannot be fully assessed. The presence of a strong bot mitigation system suggests an intent to protect the site from automated abuse, but also limits transparency and accessibility. Overall, the site scores very low on content quality, privacy compliance, and business credibility due to lack of accessible information.

Scanned

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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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';…

  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

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

Keep watching wgntv.com

This scan found 24 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
67
Security headers
25
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
35
Average
65

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

No business intelligence data could be extracted from the site due to the access block. The domain WHOIS data is missing, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy and registration status. No contact details, social media links, or company information are available. The site appears to be a media or broadcasting related domain based on the URL, but no confirmation is possible. No partnerships or related domains were identified.

Security posture

The site employs PerimeterX bot mitigation technology, indicating a proactive approach to security against automated threats. However, no security headers or SSL configuration details were available for analysis. The lack of accessible content and metadata prevents evaluation of compliance with privacy regulations or incident response readiness. The missing WHOIS data further reduces trust in domain legitimacy. Overall, the security posture is minimal but includes advanced bot protection.

Recommendations

  1. Work with the domain registrar to ensure WHOIS data is properly published and domain registration is valid.
  2. Provide accessible privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  3. Implement security headers and ensure HTTPS is properly configured and enforced.
  4. Reduce bot mitigation friction for legitimate users to improve accessibility and user experience.
  5. Publish clear business contact information and company details to enhance credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a bot challenge (PerimeterX) blocking access with a captcha to confirm human user. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google Fonts, PerimeterX (px-cloud.net)

Security

Observed score
10/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Marketing tools
PerimeterX Bot Mitigation
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to a bot mitigation challenge page.
  2. No meaningful business or contact information is available on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  4. No forms or user input fields present except for the captcha challenge.
  5. No social media or company contact details found.
  6. WHOIS data is missing, indicating possible domain registration issues or privacy protection.
  7. External domains are related to PerimeterX bot mitigation and captcha services.
  8. No SEO or accessibility metadata present.
  9. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses JavaScript and Google Fonts, with PerimeterX scripts for bot mitigation. No CMS or hosting provider information is detectable. The page is minimal and serves only as a captcha challenge, indicating a security-first approach but limiting content delivery. Performance, SEO, and accessibility cannot be assessed due to lack of content. The technical stack is modern but the implementation restricts user access and content visibility.
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 wgntv.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 wgntv.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.