Domain Risk HeatMap

Favicon for larmario.com

larmario.com

9/18/2026, 10:01:32 AM

10/10 tests performed · 11 issues reported
Critical 0High 3Low 8

Not detectedMissing step
drag, scroll, click a node

Indicators

Restricted information

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.

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

domain-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.

DomainEmailDNS
Solution:

Endurece la política de forma progresiva:

  1. Confirma que SPF y DKIM están bien configurados y alineados.
  2. Activa los informes agregados (rua) y revísalos unas semanas.
  3. Pasa de p=none a p=quarantine y finalmente a p=reject.
Low

headers-security › The X-Content-Type-Options header is missing, so browsers are not explicitly instructed to follow declared MIME types.

This is usually a low-severity issue, but it can contribute to avoidable browser-side risk if files are served with incorrect content types. It weakens the site’s security hygiene and should be corrected as part of standard hardening.

WebsiteServer
Solution:

Configure the following header on all relevant responses:

X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff

Technical checks:

  • Ensure JavaScript files are served with a valid JavaScript MIME type.
  • Ensure CSS files are served as text/css.
  • Ensure JSON, images, fonts and downloadable files have correct Content-Type values.
  • Apply the header consistently through the web server, CDN or reverse proxy.
  • Re-test static assets and API responses after deployment.
Low

headers-security › The website does not send X-Frame-Options to restrict whether its pages can be embedded by other websites.

If no equivalent CSP `frame-ancestors` protection is present, attackers may be able to embed pages in deceptive interfaces and attempt clickjacking attacks. This can affect account actions, forms, key user steps or customer trust.

WebsiteServer
Solution:

Configure framing protection using Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors where possible, and optionally keep X-Frame-Options for legacy compatibility.

Preferred modern control:

Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'self'

Or, if the site must not be framed at all:

Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'none'

Legacy-compatible header:

X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN

Or stricter:

X-Frame-Options: DENY

Technical checks:

  • Use SAMEORIGIN if legitimate same-origin embedding is needed.
  • Use DENY if the site should never be embedded.
  • Do not use ALLOW-FROM; it is obsolete and ignored by modern browsers.
  • If CSP frame-ancestors is already correctly configured, treat missing XFO as a lower-priority compatibility issue.
  • Validate embedded widgets, admin panels, previews and embedded flows before enforcing DENY.
Low

headers-security › No explicit Referrer Policy is configured to control how much URL information is shared when visitors navigate to external resources.

External services may receive more referral information than necessary, including page paths or campaign context depending on browser behavior and destination. This creates unnecessary privacy and information-disclosure exposure.

WebsiteServer
Solution:

Configure an explicit Referrer-Policy header.

Recommended balanced option:

Referrer-Policy: strict-origin-when-cross-origin

Stricter option:

Referrer-Policy: no-referrer

Technical guidance:

  • Use strict-origin-when-cross-origin for most commercial websites.
  • Use no-referrer where maximum privacy is required.
  • Avoid unsafe-url, because it can disclose full URLs to external destinations.
  • Avoid placing sensitive data, tokens, emails or identifiers in URLs.
  • Validate analytics, attribution and affiliate tracking before choosing a stricter policy.
Low

headers-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.

WebsiteServer
Solution:

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 self or 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:

  • camera
  • microphone
  • geolocation
  • payment
  • usb
  • fullscreen
  • autoplay
  • clipboard-read
  • clipboard-write
Low

accessibility-basics › 1 of 69 image(s) are missing an alt attribute

Images without alternative text are announced as generic or unlabelled by screen readers, making the content harder to understand for users with visual impairments. This is a common and low-effort accessibility gap.

WebsiteAccessibility
Solution:

Add a descriptive alt attribute to every content image.

Recommended implementation:

<img src="content-image.jpg" alt="Person speaking at a workshop">

Technical checks:

  • Describe the image content or purpose concisely; avoid generic text such as "image" or "photo".
  • Use alt="" (empty, not missing) for purely decorative images so screen readers skip them.
  • Do not stuff alt text with keywords for SEO purposes.
  • Re-test after deployment using a screen reader or accessibility browser extension.
Low

asset-optimization › No modern image formats were detected: 28 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.

Website
Solution:

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 srcset and sizes to 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.
Low

legal-compliance › Known tracking services were detected, but no recognised consent mechanism was confirmed automatically: ["Google Analytics / GA4", "Google Tag Manager", "YouTube Embed", "Meta Pixel / Facebook", "Hotjar", "Mouseflow"]

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.

WebsiteLegal
Solution:

Perform a browser-based consent review to confirm whether non-essential trackers load before user consent.

Recommended technical validation:

  1. Open the page in a clean browser profile or incognito session.
  2. Clear cookies, local storage and session storage before testing.
  3. Open DevTools → Network.
  4. Reload the page without interacting with the cookie banner.
  5. Filter requests by known tracker domains, for example analytics, advertising, heatmap, session replay or remarketing providers.
  6. Check whether any non-essential scripts, pixels, cookies or network calls are triggered before consent.
  7. 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.

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.

WebsiteWAF
Info

accessibility-basics › 2 of 149 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.

WebsiteAccessibility
Solution:

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-label or 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.
Info

info-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.

DomainWebsite
Solution:

Publish a security.txt file with a clear vulnerability reporting process.

Recommended actions:

  1. Create the file at the standard location:

    https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
    
  2. Include at least a valid contact method.

    Example:

    Contact: mailto:security@example.com
    Preferred-Languages: en, es
    Canonical: https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
    
  3. Optional but recommended fields:

    Policy: https://example.com/security-policy
    Acknowledgments: https://example.com/security-acknowledgments
    Expires: 2027-12-31T23:59:59Z
    
  4. Make sure the contact mailbox is monitored.

  5. 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
  6. Verify publication:

    curl -I https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
    curl https://example.com/.well-known/security.txt
    
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.

WebsiteCDN
Info

asset-optimization › No external web font providers were detected

The analyzed page does not appear to depend on external font services. This removes one possible third-party dependency from the initial loading path and does not require additional resource hints for external fonts.

Website
Info

dns-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.

DomainDNS
Solution:

Enable DNSSEC signing for the domain.

Recommended technical actions:

  1. Confirm DNSSEC support with the current DNS hosting provider or registrar.
  2. Enable DNSSEC signing on the authoritative DNS zone.
  3. Publish the resulting DS record with the domain registrar so the parent zone can delegate trust.
  4. Verify propagation and validate the chain of trust with an external DNSSEC validation tool.
  5. Monitor key rotation schedules if the provider does not automate them.
Info

legal-compliance › Known tracking services detected: ["Google Analytics / GA4", "Google Tag Manager", "YouTube Embed", "Meta Pixel / Facebook", "Hotjar", "Mouseflow"]

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.

WebsiteLegal

What to do now?

Choose the option that best fits your situation.

Free

Fix it in-house

Ideal if you have a developer, agency, or technical team available.

  • Prioritised action plan.
  • Explanation of each issue.
  • Step-by-step remediation guide.
Recommended

Request an advanced audit

Recommended if the site generates significant revenue or you need complete information to decide.

  • Manually verifies all findings.
  • Rules out false positives.
  • Analyses configurations that cannot be checked automatically.
  • Evaluates platform-specific risks (Shopify, WooCommerce, PrestaShop, Magento…).
  • Prioritises issues by business impact.
  • Delivers an executive report and remediation plan.
15 min

Not sure what to do?

Request a 15-minute review where we will analyse your audit results and tell you:

  • Which issues are genuinely important.
  • Which ones can wait.
  • Which are likely false positives.
  • The most cost-effective way to resolve them.

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.