Skip to main content

Security report for willamette-equities.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.willamette-equities.com currently presents minimal accessible content, primarily consisting of embedded consent management scripts without visible business information, contact details, or policies. The lack of metadata, forms, or social media links indicates a very basic or placeholder site. The domain WHOIS query returned no registration data, raising concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. Technically, the site uses JavaScript and ConsentManager CMP scripts for cookie consent but lacks modern SEO, accessibility, and security headers. The security posture is weak due to missing headers and no visible incident response or security policies. Overall, the site appears underdeveloped or possibly inactive, with significant gaps in business credibility and privacy compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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 384-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. 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';…

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

Keep watching willamette-equities.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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
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

Due to the absence of business-related content, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be determined. The domain's lack of WHOIS data and minimal web presence suggest either a newly created or dormant site. No partnerships, certifications, or trust indicators are visible. The site does not provide contact information or legal disclosures, limiting its credibility and potential for customer engagement.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS as inferred from script sources but lacks explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, or X-Frame-Options. No forms or input fields are present to assess input validation or secure data handling. The embedded consent management scripts indicate some attention to privacy compliance, but no privacy or cookie policies are directly accessible. The absence of incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms further weakens the security posture. Overall, the site exhibits a low security maturity level with significant room for improvement.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies accessible from the website.
  2. Add clear business contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses.
  3. Enhance security by configuring and verifying HTTP security headers and SSL/TLS settings.
  4. Establish incident response and vulnerability disclosure contacts and publish related policies.
  5. Improve website content quality, metadata, and SEO to increase trust and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, ConsentManager CMP
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS usage implied by script sources

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
ConsentManager
Tracking pixels
ConsentManager tracking pixel
Marketing tools
ConsentManager CMP
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and mostly consists of embedded consent management scripts
  2. No visible business information, contact details, or policies on the page
  3. No forms or interactive elements detected
  4. External domains mostly related to consent management and tracking
  5. No metadata such as title, description, or Open Graph tags found
  6. No social media or contact emails found
  7. WHOIS data unavailable, indicating possible domain registration issues or privacy protection
Technical notes

Notes

The website relies on JavaScript and ConsentManager CMP scripts for cookie consent management. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. The site lacks metadata such as titles or descriptions, and no structured data (JSON-LD) or Open Graph tags are present. Performance appears moderate with asynchronous script loading, but content is minimal. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic due to lack of content and structure. SEO optimization is poor given the absence of meta tags and meaningful content. The site would benefit from modernization, improved content structure, and enhanced technical SEO.
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 willamette-equities.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 willamette-equities.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.