Skip to main content

Security report for whistle-report.com

Other

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in Network security.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website at whistle-report.com currently presents only a minimal placeholder page consisting of a single embedded image with no textual content, metadata, or interactive elements. There is no visible business information, contact details, or legal policies such as privacy or cookie policies. The lack of content and metadata indicates a very early stage or inactive website. Technically, the site does not employ modern web technologies, scripts, or frameworks, and no security headers or advanced SSL configurations are detected. The security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS and security best practices. Overall, the site lacks transparency and trust signals, which limits its credibility and usability. Strategic improvements are needed to establish a professional online presence, including adding comprehensive content, legal policies, contact information, and security enhancements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
65/ 100 · Medium
GDPR outside view
85/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
9of 9

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

The NIS2 figure counts only evidence anyone can see from the internet. 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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL, MariaDB 5.5.5-10.11.14) is reachable from the internet. The database accepts connections from the whole internet; only its password stands in the way.

      What to do: Block port 3306 at the firewall and reach MySQL through a VPN or private network instead.

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching whistle-report.com

This scan found 14 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
100
Security headers
53
Email security
94
DNS health
95
Network security
45
Website hygiene
85
GDPR outside view
85
Average
80

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.
  • Accessibility: Accessibility is a separate readout from security, so it is reported but not scored. 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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention whistle-report.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2
Employees
0
Customers
2
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
0%

2 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for whistle-report.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

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, metadata, or structured data, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived from the current website. The domain name suggests a whistleblowing or reporting service, but no explicit business model, target audience, or market positioning is presented. No partnerships, certifications, or trust indicators are visible. The lack of contact information and company details further limits assessment of business credibility or operational maturity.

Security posture

The website exhibits a low security maturity level. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement, security headers, or secure form handling. No incident response or security policies are published. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are found. The site is vulnerable to common web security risks due to lack of basic protections. Immediate implementation of HTTPS, security headers, and privacy compliance measures is recommended to improve security posture and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure data transmission.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Publish clear contact information including email and phone for support and incident response.
  4. Incorporate security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  5. Develop meaningful website content with metadata and structured data to improve SEO and user experience.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
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 a single page with a centered embedded base64 PNG image and no textual content or metadata.
  2. No metadata, Open Graph tags, or structured data found.
  3. No forms, no external links, no contact information, no social media links detected.
  4. No scripts or external libraries detected.
  5. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  6. No security headers or advanced SSL configuration detected.
  7. Website appears to be a placeholder or under construction page with minimal content.
  8. No business or company information is presented on the page.
  9. No analytics or advertising technologies detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is a static HTML page with no external scripts, stylesheets, or frameworks detected. The entire content is a single centered base64-encoded PNG image with no textual or semantic HTML elements. There are no forms, links, or interactive components. The lack of metadata and SEO tags indicates poor technical implementation. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance is likely slow due to the large embedded image and lack of optimization. Mobile optimization and accessibility are poor given the minimal content and lack of responsive design elements. The site requires modernization with proper HTML structure, CSS, and JavaScript frameworks to enhance usability and maintainability.
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. 45/100High36 findingsView report
  2. 37/100High23 findings · partial scanView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with whistle-report.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 whistle-report.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.