Skip to main content

Security report for whiteshark.gg

White Shark · E-commerce · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

White Shark is an e-commerce website targeting gamers who are passionate about gaming but constrained by budget limitations. The site offers gaming equipment aimed at this niche market. Technically, the website is built using modern web technologies including Nuxt.js, Google Analytics, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. The site demonstrates good design quality, mobile optimization, and basic SEO practices. However, it lacks critical compliance documents such as privacy policy and terms of service, and does not provide explicit contact information, which impacts trust and compliance. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS implied but no visible security headers or incident response policies. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
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

5 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 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';…

  2. 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

  3. 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: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • 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 whiteshark.gg

This scan found 25 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. 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
80
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
100
Average
58

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

White Shark positions itself in the budget gaming equipment market, catering to gamers who seek affordable options. The business model is e-commerce focused, with a clear target audience of budget-conscious gamers. The website branding is consistent and content quality is good, but the absence of detailed company information and contact details limits business credibility. The use of Google Analytics and Cookiebot indicates awareness of marketing and privacy considerations, though full GDPR compliance is not evident. There are no visible partnerships or subsidiaries linked from the site.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS and implements cookie consent via Cookiebot, which are positive security and privacy practices. However, the absence of security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security posture. No security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, indicating limited readiness for security incidents. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The site would benefit from publishing security policies and implementing additional HTTP security headers.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add explicit contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident communication.
  3. Implement and configure HTTP security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Establish and publish a security policy and incident response plan with clear contact channels.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure privacy compliance and minimize user tracking.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
White Shark
Description
White Shark was made for those who have a deep passion for gaming but lack the budget for expensive gaming equipment.
Key services
Gaming equipment sales
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, Vue.js (implied by Nuxt.js usage), Nuxt.js
Frameworks
Nuxt.js
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by canonical URL
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses modern frontend framework Nuxt.js
  2. Cookie consent implemented via Cookiebot
  3. No visible privacy policy or terms of service pages
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found
  5. Social media icons present but no explicit URLs found in provided HTML
  6. Google Analytics and Tag Manager scripts present
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  8. WHOIS data shows domain registered via 1API with active status
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Nuxt.js, a modern Vue.js framework, indicating a contemporary technical infrastructure. It uses Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. The site appears mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO meta tags. Performance is moderate based on script usage and resource preloading. No CMS like WordPress or Shopify detected; the site is likely custom-built or uses a headless approach. Hosting provider details are not evident from the HTML. Accessibility features are basic but present. There is room for improvement in security headers and privacy documentation.
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 whiteshark.gg. 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 whiteshark.gg.

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.