Skip to main content

Security report for yelp-ir.com

Attention Required! | Cloudflare · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website yelp-ir.com is currently inaccessible due to a Cloudflare Web Application Firewall (WAF) block, presenting a security challenge page that prevents access to any business-related content. This lack of accessible content precludes detailed analysis of the company's business model, services, or contact information. The domain is mature, registered since 2012 with a reputable registrar, MarkMonitor Inc., and shows strong domain protection settings. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support severely impacts the security posture and trustworthiness of the site. The technical infrastructure relies on Cloudflare for security and AWS for hosting, but the lack of modern TLS protocols and security headers indicates poor security implementation. Privacy and compliance policies are not found, and no contact or business information is available on the blocked page. Overall, the site scores very low on content quality, security, and privacy compliance due to the blocking and missing essential elements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

6 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. 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching yelp-ir.com

This scan found 19 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
50
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
61

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 Cloudflare block, no direct business intelligence can be extracted from the website content. The domain's longevity and registrar information suggest a legitimate business presence, but no details on market positioning, business model, or services are available. The domain uses DNS records pointing to AWS infrastructure and Cloudflare for security, indicating a potentially scalable and professional hosting environment. Without accessible content, insights into partnerships, revenue streams, or customer segments cannot be determined.

Security posture

The security posture is weak, primarily due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is critical for secure communications. The site uses Cloudflare's WAF, which is actively blocking access, indicating some level of security enforcement. However, no modern TLS protocols are enabled, no HSTS policy is set, and no OCSP stapling or session resumption is configured. Security headers are minimal but present. There are no visible vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE, but the lack of encryption and the blocking page reduce usability and trust. Incident response and security policies are not found, and no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user connections.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and disable insecure legacy protocols.
  3. Implement HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload options to enforce HTTPS usage.
  4. Provide accessible privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Publish clear contact information and incident response channels to enhance transparency and support.
  6. Review Cloudflare WAF rules to reduce false positives and avoid blocking legitimate users unnecessarily.
  7. Enable OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and security.
  8. Add security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on AWS infrastructure with multiple IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and uses Cloudflare as a security and CDN provider. DNSSEC and CAA records are not configured, which could improve DNS security. The HTTP headers include some security-related headers like X-Frame-Options and Referrer-Policy but lack others such as Content-Security-Policy. The SSL configuration is non-existent with no valid certificate and no TLS protocols enabled, severely impacting security and user trust. The site performance data is unavailable due to the block. The HTML content is a standard Cloudflare block page with no business or marketing content, no forms, no metadata beyond basic charset and viewport, and no SEO or accessibility features. The site lacks mobile optimization and accessibility considerations. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and insufficient for a professional business website.
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 yelp-ir.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 yelp-ir.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.