Skip to main content

Security report for xp1.com

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in SSL/TLS, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

75/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.xp1.com represents a small-scale event photography service based in London, as indicated by the site title and description. The business appears to operate primarily as a service provider for event photography, targeting a general audience. The website is built on the Wix platform, leveraging Wix's hosting and standard JavaScript libraries including Sentry for error tracking. The technical infrastructure is basic but functional, with moderate performance and good mobile optimization. However, the site lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Security posture is minimal with HTTPS enabled but no additional security headers or policies detected. The absence of privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies, as well as contact information, reduces the site's compliance and trustworthiness. Notably, WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy and registration status. Overall, the site is functional but lacks critical compliance and security features necessary for higher trust and professionalism.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
73/ 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

4 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

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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 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 xp1.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
69
Security headers
40
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
73
Average
75

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

XP1.COM operates in the photography sector, focusing on event photography services in London. The business model is service-oriented, likely relying on direct client engagements. The website content is minimal and does not provide extensive business information, certifications, or partnerships. There is no evidence of a broader partnership ecosystem or subsidiaries. The lack of contact details and business registration information limits the ability to assess growth indicators or competitive advantages. The use of Wix suggests a small to medium-sized operation with limited digital maturity. The business targets general consumers or event organizers seeking photography services.

Security posture

The security maturity of the website is low to moderate. HTTPS is enabled, which is a fundamental security requirement. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others indicates a lack of defense-in-depth measures. No vulnerability disclosures, incident response contacts, or security policies are published, which suggests limited preparedness for security incidents. The use of third-party scripts like Sentry introduces potential risk vectors if not properly managed. The missing WHOIS data is a significant concern, as it impairs domain trust verification. Overall, the site would benefit from enhanced security controls and transparency to improve its security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and enhance user trust.
  2. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to improve business credibility and user support.
  3. Configure and deploy essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen security.
  4. Publish security incident response procedures and contact channels to demonstrate preparedness and transparency.
  5. Verify domain registration and update WHOIS information to improve legitimacy and trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
event photographer based in london, XP1.COM,photographer
Key services
event photography
Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
Wix, JavaScript, Sentry
Platforms
Wix.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and hosting.
  2. No WHOIS registration data available, indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  4. No contact emails, phone numbers, or social media links detected.
  5. Site content is minimal and focused on event photography services in London.
  6. No security headers detected; HTTPS is enabled but security posture is basic.
  7. No forms detected for user data collection.
  8. No business certifications or security policies disclosed.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information available.
  10. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected beyond Sentry error tracking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, utilizing Wix's standard JavaScript libraries and hosting infrastructure. The tech stack includes Sentry for error monitoring. The site uses modern fonts and responsive design techniques, providing good mobile optimization. Performance is moderate, with no significant issues detected in loading or rendering. However, SEO optimization is basic, with minimal meta tags and no structured data beyond Open Graph. Accessibility features are limited, with basic focus ring styling but no advanced ARIA roles or landmarks detected. The site lacks custom backend or advanced frameworks, indicating low technical complexity. Opportunities exist to improve SEO, accessibility, and security configurations to reduce technical debt and enhance user experience.
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 xp1.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 xp1.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.