Skip to main content

Security report for wpopus.com

wpOpus · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

wpOpus is a recently launched WordPress plugin and site builder focused on enhancing the Gutenberg editor with advanced custom blocks, ready-made demos, and drag-and-drop functionality. The company targets WordPress users and digital creators seeking to build websites efficiently without coding. The website presents a professional and modern design with good SEO practices and structured data, indicating a mature digital presence despite the recent domain registration in mid-2024. Technically, the site leverages WordPress core technologies, popular plugins like Contact Form 7 and Moove GDPR compliance, and modern JavaScript modules, ensuring a robust and extensible platform. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection, but lacks advanced DNS security (DNSSEC) and visible security headers. Privacy compliance is partial, with a cookie consent mechanism but no visible privacy policy or terms of service. Overall, the site is trustworthy and functional but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security documentation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 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

4 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 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 wpopus.com

This scan found 20 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
72
Security headers
50
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
95
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

The business operates in the technology sector, specifically providing WordPress Gutenberg enhancement tools. Its business model includes offering free and pro versions of its plugin, likely monetized via plugin sales and subscriptions. The target market includes WordPress site builders, developers, and digital content creators. The company shows consistent branding and a clear value proposition focused on ease of use and advanced features like animations, infinite scroll, and audio content. The partnership with Freemius suggests a payment and licensing ecosystem integration. The market position is niche but competitive within the WordPress plugin ecosystem. Growth potential depends on expanding feature sets and improving compliance and security trust signals.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with HTTPS enforced and domain transfer lock enabled. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS reduces its defense-in-depth. No explicit security policies or incident response contacts are published, which could hinder trust and responsiveness in case of security events. The use of Google reCAPTCHA indicates some protection against automated abuse. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. The security score is moderate, with recommendations to enhance DNS security, publish security policies, and implement security headers to improve resilience and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  2. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  3. Implement and verify HTTP security headers such as CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Create and publish a security policy and incident response contact information, including a vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file.
  5. Add clear company contact information including verified emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility and user support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
wpOpus
Description
Effortlessly build your WordPress website with drag-and-drop advanced custom blocks, ready-made demos and patterns, no coding required.
Key services
Gutenberg blocks, Site building tools, One-click demo import, Animation and hover effects, Infinite scroll and load more features, Audio content (text-to-speech)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Gutenberg blocks, JavaScript ES modules, jQuery, AOS (Animate On Scroll), Contact Form 7, Moove GDPR Cookie Compliance plugin, Rank Math SEO plugin
Frameworks
WordPress Gutenberg
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • ClientTransferProhibited domain status
  • No DNSSEC (not enabled)
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA script

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Marketing tools
Rank Math SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a WordPress-based product site for a Gutenberg toolkit and site builder plugin.
  2. Content is professionally presented with good SEO and structured data.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found.
  4. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via Moove GDPR plugin.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. No signs of WAF or content blocking.
  8. Domain is newly registered and consistent with product launch timeline.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a modern Gutenberg-based theme and plugin architecture. It uses JavaScript ES modules, jQuery, and animation libraries like AOS for enhanced UI effects. SEO is managed by Rank Math plugin, and GDPR compliance is handled by Moove GDPR Cookie Compliance plugin. The site loads external resources from WordPress CDN domains and Google reCAPTCHA services. Performance is moderate with optimized images and responsive design. Accessibility is basic but present. The technical stack is current and well-integrated, though some improvements in security headers and DNS configuration are advisable to reduce technical risks.
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 wpopus.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 wpopus.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.