Domain Risk HeatMap
comunicaweb.es
10/2/2026, 11:55:16 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 |
|
| Low |
|
| Low |
|
| Info |
|
| 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 | 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
Lowdomain-profile › El dominio publica DMARC, pero la política no está en modo de aplicación
Hay DMARC, pero todavía no bloquea la suplantación: sirve para observar, no para proteger.
Endurece la política de forma progresiva:
- Confirma que SPF y DKIM están bien configurados y alineados.
- Activa los informes agregados (
rua) y revísalos unas semanas. - Pasa de
p=noneap=quarantiney finalmente ap=reject.
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.
Lowperformance-basics › No Cache-Control header detected on static resources
Browser caching behaviour may be less predictable. Some clients may still cache using other validators, but explicit Cache-Control headers provide better control and usually improve repeat-visit performance.
Add explicit Cache-Control headers to static resources.
Recommended technical actions:
Configure cache headers for CSS, JavaScript, images, fonts and other static assets.
For versioned assets, use:
Cache-Control: public, max-age=31536000, immutableFor non-versioned assets, use a shorter but explicit cache policy, for example:
Cache-Control: public, max-age=86400Avoid applying aggressive caching to HTML documents unless the site has a safe cache invalidation strategy.
Check server, CDN, reverse proxy and CMS plugin configuration.
Validate the final headers with browser DevTools or
curl -I.
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.
Lowlegal-compliance › Known tracking services were detected, but no recognised consent mechanism was confirmed automatically: Google Tag Manager, Google Fonts (GDPR risk), reCAPTCHA
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.
Infotls-certificate › Port 80 (HTTP) is not responding
No unencrypted HTTP version was reachable during the audit. This is not normally a security issue, although some visitors or legacy links using explicit HTTP addresses may experience a connection error instead of being redirected to HTTPS.
No urgent security remediation is required if HTTPS is working correctly.
Optional improvement:
Enable a minimal HTTP listener
- Configure port
80only to redirect traffic to HTTPS. - Do not serve website content over HTTP.
- Configure port
Use a permanent redirect
- Redirect
http://domain.comtohttps://domain.com. - Preserve the original path and query string.
- Redirect
Keep the attack surface minimal
- Do not expose additional services on port
80. - Use it only for redirection and, if needed, controlled certificate validation.
- Do not expose additional services on port
Validate user access
- Confirm that visitors typing the domain manually reach the HTTPS website.
- Check old backlinks, bookmarks, and marketing URLs that may still use HTTP.
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 › 9 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
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.