Skip to main content

Security report for yrssl.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

69/100

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

The website at yrssl.com is currently inaccessible, serving only a 502 Bad Gateway error page generated by nginx. No business-related content, metadata, or contact information is available for analysis. The domain WHOIS data shows a suspicious creation date set in the future (March 17, 2025), which undermines trust and legitimacy. The hosting registrar is Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd., but no further hosting or infrastructure details are available due to the lack of website content. The absence of HTTPS information, security headers, and privacy policies indicates a very low security posture. Overall, the site appears non-operational or misconfigured, preventing meaningful business or security assessment.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
Checks completed
6of 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching yrssl.com

This scan found 17 issues across 5 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
62
Email security
60
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
69

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention yrssl.com, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for yrssl.com right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

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 lack of accessible content and metadata, no business intelligence can be derived. The domain does not present any identifiable company name, services, or market positioning. The suspicious WHOIS data further reduces confidence in the domain's operational status or legitimacy. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or related domains are identified.

Security posture

The security posture is poor given the website is down with a 502 error and no security headers or HTTPS status can be confirmed. The domain lacks DNSSEC and shows inconsistent WHOIS data. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site is not GDPR compliant and does not provide any privacy or cookie policies. These factors indicate a minimal security maturity level and high risk if the site were to become operational without remediation.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve the 502 Bad Gateway server error to restore website availability.
  2. Verify and correct domain WHOIS information, especially the creation date.
  3. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enable security headers.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance.
  5. Add contact information and business details to enhance credibility and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

None detected. Website is currently inaccessible due to a 502 Bad Gateway error indicating server-side failure, not a WAF or security challenge. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
nginx
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
10/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is currently down with a 502 Bad Gateway error served by nginx
  2. No website content or metadata available for analysis
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No contact information or business details available
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available
  6. Domain WHOIS data shows suspicious future creation date
  7. No external links, forms, scripts, or social media links detected
  8. No advertising or analytics technologies detected
  9. Content safety is safe due to lack of content
  10. Analysis incomplete due to website unavailability
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on infrastructure registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. and served by nginx. The 502 Bad Gateway error indicates a backend server or gateway failure. No CMS, frameworks, or analytics technologies are detected due to lack of content. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed but are presumed poor given the error page. DNSSEC is not enabled, which is a missed opportunity for DNS security. Overall, the technical setup appears incomplete or misconfigured.
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 yrssl.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 yrssl.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.