Skip to main content

Security report for witchfuneral.quest

Private by Design, LLC · Technology · United States

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website witchfuneral.quest is a personal portfolio and blog site operated by an individual named Ada, who identifies as a nonbinary lesbian and technology enthusiast. The site serves as a personal corner of the internet to share interests in Linux, coding, art, and music, with a small audience likely composed of like-minded individuals. The business model is informal, relying on voluntary support via coff.ee, and does not represent a commercial enterprise or large-scale operation. Technically, the site is a simple static HTML page with basic CSS and JavaScript, including a last.fm integration for music display. The hosting is provided by Porkbun, a domain registrar, with no detected CMS or advanced frameworks. Performance and mobile optimization are basic, with minimal SEO and accessibility features. No security headers or HTTPS status were detected from the data provided, indicating potential security improvements. From a security perspective, the site lacks formal privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, and no contact information for incident response or data protection officers is provided. The domain WHOIS data is privacy protected by Private by Design, LLC, which is reasonable for a personal site, but the domain creation date is suspiciously set in the future, which may be a data error. No WAF or blocking mechanisms are detected, and no adult or unsafe content is present. Overall, the site scores low to moderate on content quality, technical implementation, security posture, privacy compliance, and business credibility. Strategic improvements in HTTPS deployment, security headers, privacy policies, and contact information would enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 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

9 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. 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

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

Keep watching witchfuneral.quest

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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
60

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

The website represents a personal brand rather than a commercial business, targeting a niche audience interested in technology, Linux, and personal expression. The site owner leverages open-source technologies and shares personal projects and interests. Revenue streams appear limited to voluntary support via coff.ee. The market position is informal and hobbyist, with no evident partnerships or subsidiaries. Growth indicators and strategic partnerships are not present, reflecting a small-scale operation focused on personal expression rather than commercial expansion.

Security posture

The current security posture is minimal, with no evidence of HTTPS enforcement, security headers, or formal security policies. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response contacts or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are provided. The use of privacy protection in WHOIS is appropriate for a personal site but the suspicious domain creation date warrants further verification. Overall, the site is low risk due to its personal nature but would benefit from basic security enhancements to protect visitor data and improve trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure all site traffic.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and transparency.
  4. Provide contact information for security incidents and data protection inquiries.
  5. Enable DNSSEC to enhance domain security and prevent spoofing.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Private by Design, LLC
Description
Personal website of Ada, a nonbinary lesbian tech enthusiast, artist, musician, and webmaster who shares interests in Linux and coding.
Key services
Personal blogging, Art sharing, Tech projects showcase
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, last.fm API
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a personal portfolio/blog with minimal business presence.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms policies found.
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers provided.
  4. No security headers or HTTPS status available from data.
  5. No CMS or frameworks detected; simple static site.
  6. External links mostly to tech and personal interest sites.
  7. Affiliate link to coff.ee for support present.
  8. WHOIS data shows privacy protection and unusual future creation date.
  9. No signs of adult or unsafe content.
  10. No WAF or blocking detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using basic HTML, CSS, and JavaScript without any detected CMS or frameworks. It uses a video background and last.fm API integration for dynamic content. Hosting is via Porkbun, primarily a domain registrar, suggesting a simple hosting setup. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility. SEO is minimal with no Open Graph or structured data present. The site would benefit from modernization including responsive design improvements, SEO enhancements, and security hardening.
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 witchfuneral.quest. 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 witchfuneral.quest.

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.