Domain Risk HeatMap
acamacho.com
10/6/2026, 8:51:55 AM
Indicators
Some findings are hidden in this public report because they may include technical details that could facilitate abuse, competitor action, or unnecessary security and reputational exposure. Verify domain ownership to unlock the full report.
| Risk | What it means for your business |
|---|---|
| Critical | Details are protected until domain ownership is verified to avoid exposing sensitive technical information publicly |
| Critical | Details are protected until domain ownership is verified to avoid exposing sensitive technical information publicly |
| High | Details are protected until domain ownership is verified to avoid exposing sensitive technical information publicly |
| Low |
|
| Low |
|
| Low |
|
| Low |
|
| Low |
|
| Info | headers-security › No active web application firewall or bot protection signal was detected from response headers or content This is not necessarily a problem: many legitimate sites operate without a dedicated WAF and rely on other controls. This check only looks for signals of an active protection mode (challenge pages, bot-management cookies). The site may still sit behind a CDN or proxy (e.g. Cloudflare, Sucuri) with WAF capabilities available but not actively challenging this request, which this passive check cannot confirm either way. |
| Info |
|
| Info |
|
| Info |
|
| Info |
|
| Info | asset-optimization › No recognizable CDN was detected for the static assets analyzed Not using a CDN is not necessarily a performance issue. A local website with moderate traffic and solid hosting may serve assets correctly without one. For websites with international traffic, high-volume campaigns, or frequent traffic spikes, a CDN can help make load times more stable. |
| Info |
|
| Info | legal-compliance › Known tracking services detected: Google Analytics / GA4, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts (GDPR risk), reCAPTCHA, Hotjar, Cookiebot These services are commonly used for analytics, advertising, attribution, personalisation or behaviour measurement. This indicator is informational; privacy and compliance impact depends on the service purpose, configuration, consent behaviour, data sharing model and applicable jurisdiction. |
Some findings are hidden in this public report because they may include technical details that could facilitate abuse, competitor action, or unnecessary security and reputational exposure. Verify domain ownership to unlock the full report.
Details are protected until domain ownership is verified to avoid exposing sensitive technical information publicly
Details are protected until domain ownership is verified to avoid exposing sensitive technical information publicly
Details are protected until domain ownership is verified to avoid exposing sensitive technical information publicly
Lowtls-certificate › HTTPS certificate will expire in 23 days (Oct 28 23:59:59 2026 GMT)
There is no immediate user-facing issue, but the certificate is approaching renewal time. If the renewal process is not monitored, the website could later display browser security warnings and interrupt normal business activity.
Review the renewal process and confirm that the certificate will renew automatically.
Recommended checks:
Confirm renewal ownership
- Identify whether renewal is handled by the hosting provider, CDN, DevOps team, agency, or internal administrator.
- Make sure the responsible party is clearly assigned.
Validate automation
- Check that automatic renewal is enabled.
- Confirm that validation methods still work:
- HTTP validation path is reachable.
- DNS validation records can be updated.
- CDN or proxy rules do not block certificate validation.
Check deployment path
- Ensure the renewed certificate will be installed in the correct place:
- Web server.
- Reverse proxy.
- CDN.
- Load balancer.
- Hosting control panel.
- Ensure the renewed certificate will be installed in the correct place:
Monitor expiration
- Set up certificate expiry alerts.
- Recommended alert windows: 30, 14, 7, and 3 days before expiration.
Document fallback procedure
- Keep access to the DNS provider and hosting/CDN panel available.
- Document how to renew manually if automation fails.
Lowtls-certificate › HTTP-to-HTTPS redirection is incomplete: Redirige, pero a una URL que no es HTTPS
Some HTTP requests may not be consistently redirected to the secure version of the website. This creates an inconsistent security posture and may allow visitors to reach unsecured pages in specific cases.
Complete and standardize the HTTP-to-HTTPS redirect configuration.
Recommended checks:
Identify the incomplete case
- Check whether the issue affects:
- Apex domain.
wwwdomain.- Specific paths.
- Trailing slash variants.
- Query strings.
- Subdomains.
- Redirect status codes.
- Check whether the issue affects:
Use permanent redirects
- Use
301redirects for production canonical URLs. - Avoid temporary
302redirects unless there is a specific operational reason.
- Use
Preserve URL structure
- Keep the same path and query string after redirect.
- Avoid sending all HTTP requests to the homepage.
Remove redirect chains
- Configure a direct redirect from HTTP to the final HTTPS canonical URL.
- Minimize multiple hops across
www, non-www, language paths, or trailing slash variants.
Apply rules consistently
- Configure the redirect at CDN, proxy, load balancer, or web server level.
- Avoid conflicting redirect rules between application, CMS plugins, hosting panel, and CDN.
Test common entry points
http://domain.comhttp://www.domain.com- Important landing pages.
- Key content/category pages.
- Login and account pages.
Review HSTS only after fixing redirects
- HSTS should be considered only when HTTPS works reliably across the intended hostnames.
Lowinfo-exposure › Response header x-powered-by discloses software version information: PHP/8.3.35, PleskLin
The response header discloses software version information. This is not a vulnerability by itself, but it gives attackers additional context to fingerprint the stack and compare the detected version against known weaknesses. The business risk increases if the disclosed software is outdated, unsupported, or affected by known vulnerabilities.
Reduce unnecessary software version disclosure in HTTP response headers.
Recommended actions:
Identify the component exposing the version through the
x-powered-byheader.Example:
curl -I https://example.comDisable or minimize version disclosure.
Nginx:
server_tokens off;Apache:
ServerTokens Prod ServerSignature OffPHP:
expose_php = OffIf the header is generated by a framework, CMS, proxy, CDN, or plugin, remove or override the version at that layer.
Keep generic product disclosure only where operationally required.
Prefer:
Server: nginxInstead of:
Server: nginx/1.18.0Validate the result after deployment:
curl -I https://example.comDo not rely on header hiding as a security control. Also verify that the disclosed component is updated, supported, and not affected by known vulnerabilities.
Lowasset-optimization › No modern image formats were detected: 37 image(s) use JPEG/PNG/GIF
All detected images use traditional formats. This can increase page weight compared with WebP or AVIF when similar visual quality is required. On a website, heavier images may affect perceived speed, mobile data usage, and browsing fluidity across important pages. The impact should be validated against actual image size, compression, and loading priority.
Adopt modern image formats across the site, starting with the images that have the greatest performance impact.
Technical recommendations:
- Audit the current image weight and sort images by transferred size.
- Prioritize:
- Main homepage or hero image.
- Promotional banners.
- Category images.
- Main content images.
- Carousels and visual modules loaded during the initial render.
- Convert suitable JPEG/PNG assets to WebP or AVIF using controlled compression.
- Keep JPEG/PNG fallbacks if additional compatibility is required:
<picture> <source srcset="/image.avif" type="image/avif"> <source srcset="/image.webp" type="image/webp"> <img src="/image.jpg" alt="Image description"> </picture> - Configure automatic generation through the CMS, server, CDN, or deployment pipeline.
- Avoid uploading oversized images to the CMS.
- Use
srcsetandsizesto serve versions adapted to each viewport:<img src="/content-800.webp" srcset="/content-400.webp 400w, /content-800.webp 800w, /content-1200.webp 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 50vw" alt="Content image description"> - Use
loading="lazy"for non-critical images. - Do not lazy-load the main image if it contributes to LCP.
- Measure before and after with Lighthouse, PageSpeed Insights, or WebPageTest to validate the real reduction in page weight and loading time.
Lowlegal-compliance › Known tracking services were detected, but no recognised consent mechanism was confirmed automatically: Google Analytics / GA4, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts (GDPR risk), reCAPTCHA, Hotjar, Cookiebot
The analysed page contains known analytics, advertising or behaviour-tracking services, and the scan did not identify a recognised consent mechanism in the analysed HTML. For a website, this can create a privacy, trust and compliance review issue, especially if non-essential trackers load before consent. This finding is not proof of unlawful tracking; manual browser testing is required.
Perform a browser-based consent review to confirm whether non-essential trackers load before user consent.
Recommended technical validation:
- Open the page in a clean browser profile or incognito session.
- Clear cookies, local storage and session storage before testing.
- Open DevTools → Network.
- Reload the page without interacting with the cookie banner.
- Filter requests by known tracker domains, for example analytics, advertising, heatmap, session replay or remarketing providers.
- Check whether any non-essential scripts, pixels, cookies or network calls are triggered before consent.
- Repeat the test after accepting, rejecting and customising consent choices.
If non-essential trackers load before consent:
- Configure a Consent Management Platform (CMP).
- Categorise scripts by purpose: necessary, analytics, advertising, personalisation, functional.
- Block non-essential tags by default.
- Trigger analytics, advertising and remarketing tags only after the matching consent category is granted.
- Integrate the CMP with the tag manager, for example Google Tag Manager Consent Mode where applicable.
- Verify that consent withdrawal updates or deletes relevant client-side storage where technically possible.
- Document the final behaviour for legal/privacy review.
This technical fix should be validated by both a developer and the legal/privacy owner.
headers-security › No active web application firewall or bot protection signal was detected from response headers or content
This is not necessarily a problem: many legitimate sites operate without a dedicated WAF and rely on other controls. This check only looks for signals of an active protection mode (challenge pages, bot-management cookies). The site may still sit behind a CDN or proxy (e.g. Cloudflare, Sucuri) with WAF capabilities available but not actively challenging this request, which this passive check cannot confirm either way.
Infoseo-basics › 4 <h1> headings detected on the analysed page
Multiple H1 headings are not always a critical SEO problem, but they can make the page structure less clear and may reveal a template issue. On commercial pages, this can weaken the clarity of the main message and make technical review advisable.
Review the heading structure and confirm whether multiple <h1> elements are intentional.
Recommended technical actions:
- Identify where each
<h1>is generated: theme, CMS field, hero block, content component, header component or third-party widget. - Keep one primary
<h1>for the main page topic where possible. - Convert secondary headings to
<h2>or<h3>when they represent sections, blocks or supporting content. - Ensure hidden, duplicated or responsive-only headings are not creating repeated H1s.
- Preserve a logical heading hierarchy for accessibility and document structure.
- Re-test key page templates after the change.
Infoseo-basics › Incomplete Open Graph metadata detected (missing: og:image)
When Open Graph metadata is incomplete, social platforms and messaging apps may generate fallback previews. This can produce inconsistent titles, weak descriptions or unattractive images when users share the page.
Complete the missing Open Graph tags inside the document <head>.
Recommended implementation:
<meta property="og:title" content="Page title for social sharing">
<meta property="og:description" content="Short, compelling description for social sharing">
<meta property="og:image" content="https://example.com/path/to/image.jpg">
Technical checks:
- Use an absolute URL for
og:image. - Recommended image size: at least 1200x630 px.
- Ensure the image URL returns HTTP
200. - Ensure the image is crawlable and not blocked by authentication or robots rules.
- Keep
og:titleandog:descriptionaligned with the visible page content. - Use page-specific values for content pages, categories and landing pages.
- Ensure the tags are present in the initial HTML response.
- Test previews in major social and messaging platforms after deployment.
Infoaccessibility-basics › 3 of 69 link(s) or button(s) have no accessible text
Links or buttons with no visible text, aria-label or title are announced as empty or generic by screen readers (for example, just \"link\" or \"button\"), making them unusable for assistive technology users. This is common in icon-only buttons and image links.
Provide an accessible name for every interactive link and button.
Recommended implementation:
<a href="/account" aria-label="View account">
<svg aria-hidden="true">...</svg>
</a>
<button aria-label="Close dialog">×</button>
Technical checks:
- Prefer visible text content over aria-label when possible.
- For icon-only controls, add
aria-labelor visually hidden text. - Ensure decorative icons inside the control use
aria-hidden="true". - Avoid generic labels such as "click here" or "read more" without context.
- Re-test with a screen reader or accessibility browser extension.
Infoinfo-exposure › No security.txt vulnerability reporting file detected
The website does not publish a standard security contact file. This is not a vulnerability by itself, but it may make it harder for researchers or third parties to report security issues responsibly. In practice, this can delay remediation of problems that may affect customer trust, service availability, or business reputation.
Publish a security.txt file with a clear vulnerability reporting process.
Recommended actions:
Create the file at the standard location:
https://example.com/.well-known/security.txtInclude at least a valid contact method.
Example:
Contact: mailto:security@example.com Preferred-Languages: en, es Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txtOptional but recommended fields:
Policy: https://example.com/security-policy Acknowledgments: https://example.com/security-acknowledgments Expires: 2027-12-31T23:59:59ZMake sure the contact mailbox is monitored.
Define an internal triage process:
- Who receives the report
- Who validates the issue
- Expected response time
- Escalation path for critical vulnerabilities
- Criteria for coordinated disclosure
Verify publication:
curl -I https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt curl https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
asset-optimization › No recognizable CDN was detected for the static assets analyzed
Not using a CDN is not necessarily a performance issue. A local website with moderate traffic and solid hosting may serve assets correctly without one. For websites with international traffic, high-volume campaigns, or frequent traffic spikes, a CDN can help make load times more stable.
Infodns-email-reputation › No validated DNSSEC delegation was found for the domain: No DS records in the parent zone
DNS responses for this domain cannot be cryptographically validated, leaving some exposure to DNS spoofing or cache poisoning in vulnerable network paths. This is a common configuration across the web and is rarely a critical issue on its own, but enabling DNSSEC adds a meaningful layer of trust for domains handling logins or sensitive customer data.
Enable DNSSEC signing for the domain.
Recommended technical actions:
- Confirm DNSSEC support with the current DNS hosting provider or registrar.
- Enable DNSSEC signing on the authoritative DNS zone.
- Publish the resulting DS record with the domain registrar so the parent zone can delegate trust.
- Verify propagation and validate the chain of trust with an external DNSSEC validation tool.
- Monitor key rotation schedules if the provider does not automate them.
legal-compliance › Known tracking services detected: Google Analytics / GA4, Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts (GDPR risk), reCAPTCHA, Hotjar, Cookiebot
These services are commonly used for analytics, advertising, attribution, personalisation or behaviour measurement. This indicator is informational; privacy and compliance impact depends on the service purpose, configuration, consent behaviour, data sharing model and applicable jurisdiction.
What to do now?
Choose the option that best fits your situation.
Fix it in-house
Ideal if you have a developer, agency, or technical team available.
Request an advanced audit
Recommended if the site generates significant revenue or you need complete information to decide.
Not sure what to do?
Request a 15-minute review where we will analyse your audit results and tell you:
What is behind this report?
Built to detect the kind of issues that silently affect sales, trust, checkout confidence, campaign performance, and operational continuity.

- A system designed to prevent your website and digital marketing from failing.
- A team with over 25 years of experience building digital projects for businesses.
- Thousands of automated audits run during platform training and validation.
- Dozens of technical indicators analysed on every execution.
- Multiple data sources combined — DNS, TLS, HTTP, performance, reputation, email, legal compliance, SEO, and more.
- AI specialised in interpreting business impact, not just technical results.
About this audit
This report is provided for informational and prioritisation purposes only. It reflects automated observations obtained from publicly available information at the time of analysis. The findings are not definitive proof of a vulnerability, legal breach, security incident, performance failure, reputational damage, or business loss. They highlight indicators that may deserve review because improving them can help reduce exposure, strengthen digital operations, and support customer trust. Risk estimates are decision-support indicators, not predictions of specific events. Automated analysis cannot verify every technical, legal, operational, or business context. Expert review may be required to validate results, rule out false positives, and determine actual impact before making significant remediation or compliance decisions.