Domain Risk HeatMap
comunica-web.com
8/4/2026, 8:46:24 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 |
|---|---|
| High | 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 |
| High | Details are protected until domain ownership is verified to avoid exposing sensitive technical information publicly |
| 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 | 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 Tag Manager, Google Fonts (GDPR risk), reCAPTCHA 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
Lowheaders-security › No Permissions Policy is configured to restrict access to sensitive browser features and APIs.
Browser capabilities such as camera, microphone, geolocation, payment or fullscreen may be available more broadly than required, especially to embedded third-party content. This increases unnecessary privacy and security exposure.
Define a Permissions-Policy header that disables unused browser features and only allows required capabilities.
Example restrictive baseline:
Permissions-Policy: camera=(), microphone=(), geolocation=(), payment=(), usb=(), fullscreen=(self)
Adapt the policy to the site:
- Disable features not used by the website.
- Allow features only for
selfor specific trusted origins when required. - Review embedded third-party content, including videos, maps, service widgets and marketing tools.
- Test user journeys that may require browser permissions.
- Document intentional exceptions.
Common directives to review:
cameramicrophonegeolocationpaymentusbfullscreenautoplayclipboard-readclipboard-write
Lowinfo-exposure › Response header x-powered-by discloses software version information: 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: 17 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 › No candidate privacy policy link was detected in the analysed page
The scan could not confirm that visitors have easy access to privacy information from the analysed page. For a website, this can weaken trust during registration, account or contact-form interactions. This is not a legal conclusion; footer links, JavaScript-rendered menus, regional banners or non-standard wording may require manual review.
Manually verify whether a privacy policy exists and is easy to access from the analysed page.
Recommended technical actions:
Add a persistent footer link using clear wording such as:
Privacy PolicyPrivacy NoticeData Protection- Localised equivalents where appropriate, for example
Política de privacidad.
Ensure the link is present in the initial HTML where possible, not only injected after user interaction.
Use a stable, crawlable URL, for example:
/privacy-policy/privacy/politica-de-privacidad
Confirm that the linked page returns HTTP
200, is indexable if appropriate, and is not blocked by authentication, geolocation or JavaScript-only navigation.Manually review the legal content with the responsible legal/privacy team. This automated indicator only checks discoverability, not legal sufficiency.
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.
Infoaccessibility-basics › 10 of 59 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 Tag Manager, Google Fonts (GDPR risk), reCAPTCHA
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.