Scanned sites / itres.com
SEO report for itres.com DR 42
The latest Site Spider scan of itres.com, with 1 scan on record. Each scan is at its own address, for example /domain/itres-com/2026-09-06-2000.
DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.
Latest scan
Scanned 2026-09-06 20:00:35 UTC, finished 2026-09-06 20:13:28 UTC
Site: https://itres.com/
Download SQLite databaseEvery page and asset from this scan, with the crawl events, in one file.
On September 6, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 170 pages and 1030 assets of itres.com, starting from https://itres.com/. It scored 75 out of 100, a good result. 11 of 27 checks found something to fix, led by meta descriptions (146), heavy assets (32), headings (113); 7 checks passed. Most of the points went to meta descriptions (−7.1), heavy assets (−6), headings (−4.1). 9 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 10 checks were not run because the crawl fetched nothing for them. The list below shows each check's result, the fix plan, when present, explains what to do first, and the security review at the end of the page covers headers, transport, libraries and exposed files.
Security review: Medium5 medium and 1 low findings. See the security findings ↓
- Pages crawled
- 170
- Assets fetched
- 1030
- Status
- Completed
- Checks with issues
- 11 of 27
1,200 of 1,201 discovered URLs were fetched, 1,245 left out by the 200-page and 1,000-asset budget, 1 still waiting. The job finished, but the crawl did not reach everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 26 link destinations on other sites were checked.
- Title tags52 issues52 of 146 pages have title issues. 18 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.−3.2 points
- Meta descriptions146 issues146 of 146 pages have meta description issues. 18 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.−7.1 points
- Headings113 issues113 of 146 pages have heading issues. 18 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.−4.1 points
- Broken links1 issue1 internal link point at 1 broken URL.−0.1 points
- Links to other sites1 issue1 destination answered with an error, 3 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), of 26 destinations checked.−0.3 points
- Redirects3 issues11 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.−0.1 points
- Non-200 responses2 issues13 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 6 of them are pages, 2 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.−0.1 points
- Rate limitedOKThe site did not rate limit the crawler.
- Indexability2 issues2 of 147 indexable pages have indexability warnings. 17 pages noindex by design. 1 noindex page is listed in the sitemap, which asks search engines both to visit and to ignore it.−0.1 points
- Image alt textOK0 of 1683 image references have no alt attribute. 442 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
- Heavy assets32 issues32 assets larger than 500 KB among 1030 fetched assets. 17 documents over that size are listed but not counted: downloads are not page weight.−6 points
- Orphan pages6 issues6 pages have no internal links pointing at them.−0.1 points
- Sitemap coverage95 issues4 sitemaps listing 60 URLs: 88 crawled pages missing, 1 listed URL broken or redirecting, 5 reachable only via the sitemap.−3.5 points
- Internal link counts16 notedInternal link counts for 164 pages; 16 worth a look.
- Thin contentOK0 of 146 pages have fewer than 200 words. 18 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
- Duplicate contentOK0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
- URL format90 noted90 of 170 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
- Canonicals18 noted18 of 164 pages have a canonical worth checking.
- Robots directives164 noted164 pages carry a robots directive; 0 carry none.
- Anchor text116 noted116 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
- Title and heading structure20 noted20 of 146 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 18 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
- Image weight and alt length94 noted94 images over 100 KB; 0 with alt text over 100 characters.
- Response anomalies1 noted1 URL answered in a way worth looking at.
- HTML and head validationNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- hreflangNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Structured dataNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Near duplicatesNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Soft 404sOKNone of 164 pages answering 200 reads like an error page.
- AccessibilityNot checkedNot checked: the accessibility audit runs in the browser. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to run it.
- Link positionsNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before link positions were recorded. Scan the site again to run it.
- PaginationNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
- Headers and cookiesOK0 cookies set by the site; 11 response headers recorded across 1200 URLs.
- Orphans in searchNot checkedNot checked: import a Search Console Pages export on the scan page to find pages Google shows that the site does not link to.
- Link ScoreOKLink Score (internal PageRank, 0-100) for 164 pages; 6 hold almost none (10 or less).
- JavaScript renderingNot checkedNot checked: this scan did not render pages. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to compare the served HTML with what a browser builds.
- PageSpeed Insights5 notedMobile performance 37 on average across 5 pages; 5 below Google's good thresholds.
- SpellingNot checkedNot checked: this scan was crawled before this check existed. Scan the site again to run it.
Where this site sits among all scanned sites
2312 sites, median 79%, average 78%
itres.com scores 75%, higher than 32% of the 2312 scanned sites. See the full ranking.
Green 90% and up (Excellent), lime 75 to 89 (Good), amber 50 to 74 (Needs work), red below 50 (Poor).
Internal link map
Loading the link map...
Fix plan
Written by gpt-4o-mini from the scan findingsWritten from an earlier version of the analysis. The findings on this page have been recomputed since, so counts and labels here may differ from what the plan describes. The advice still points at the same checks.
There are several SEO issues needing attention, including broken links, redirects, and meta description problems. Addressing these can improve your site's performance significantly.
- 1
Fix Broken Link
Why: One broken internal link negatively impacts user experience and SEO.
How: Update the link from the contact page to point to the correct URL.
Checks: broken-links
- 2
Address Redirects
Why: Multiple redirects can slow down user access and waste crawl budget.
How: Consider consolidating or removing unnecessary redirects for faster load times.
Checks: redirects
- 3
Update Non-200 Status Codes
Why: Pages returning non-200 responses can prevent users from accessing content.
How: Review the 13 URLs for 404 errors and update or remove them.
Checks: status-codes
- 4
Optimize Title Tags
Why: Inadequate titles can impact search visibility and click-through rates.
How: Revise the 48 pages with issues to ensure they are clear and within optimal length (50-60 characters).
Checks: titles
- 5
Enhance Meta Descriptions
Why: Missing or poorly optimized meta descriptions diminish search presence.
How: Create unique meta descriptions for the pages having issues, aim for 150-160 characters.
Checks: meta-descriptions
- 6
Correct Heading Structure
Why: Improper heading tags confuse search engines and users about page content hierarchy.
How: Ensure each page has only one H1 tag and fix missing headings on 113 affected pages.
Checks: headings
Generated automatically; verify each change against your own site before relying on it.
Security review
Written by gpt-4o-mini from 16 checks over the crawlYour website is lacking several important security features, which could expose it and your users to various risks. Critical updates are needed to improve protections against man-in-the-middle attacks, unauthorized script execution, and vulnerabilities in JavaScript libraries. Addressing these findings is essential to enhance overall security.
- 0 high
- 5 medium
- 1 low
- 0 info
- 1
Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium
Why it matters: Without HSTS, visitors are vulnerable to interception on the first request.
Fix: Add the header 'Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains'.
Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security
- 2
Missing Content Security Policy (CSP)Medium
Why it matters: Absence of CSP allows scripts, styles, or frames to load from untrusted sources.
Fix: Add the header 'Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self';'.
Evidence: Content Security Policy
- 3
Missing X-Frame-Options HeaderMedium
Why it matters: Lack of this header allows clickjacking attacks by embedding content in frames.
Fix: Add the header 'X-Frame-Options: DENY'.
Evidence: Clickjacking protection
- 4
Vulnerable JavaScript LibrariesMedium
Why it matters: Using outdated jQuery versions can lead to critical security vulnerabilities.
Fix: Upgrade jQuery to version 3.5.0 or higher.
Evidence: Vulnerable JavaScript libraries
- 5
Exposed Google API KeyMedium
Why it matters: An API key found in the code can be exploited if not properly restricted.
Fix: Restrict this key in the Google Cloud console by adding HTTP referrer restrictions.
Evidence: Keys and secrets in page code
- 6
Missing X-Content-Type-Options HeaderLow
Why it matters: Without this header, browsers may execute files based on their contents, leading to security risks.
Fix: Add the header 'X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff'.
Evidence: MIME sniffing protection
What the checks found
- FoundHTTP Strict Transport SecurityMedium
No HTML page sends strict-transport-security. Without it a visitor who types the address without https:// can be intercepted on the first request.
- https://www.itres.com/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-1-high-fidelity-hyperspectral-sensor-system/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-2-micro-imagers/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-3-sensors-for-space/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/airborne-surveys/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/supporting-products/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/applications/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/why-itres/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/quality-management/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/our-history/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/itres-in-the-world/ → no strict-transport-security
- https://www.itres.com/legal/ → no strict-transport-security
- FoundContent Security PolicyMedium
None of the 164 HTML pages send a Content-Security-Policy header or meta tag, so the browser has no restriction on where scripts, styles and frames may load from.
- https://www.itres.com/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-1-high-fidelity-hyperspectral-sensor-system/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-2-micro-imagers/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-3-sensors-for-space/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/airborne-surveys/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/supporting-products/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/applications/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/why-itres/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/quality-management/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/our-history/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/itres-in-the-world/ → no content-security-policy
- https://www.itres.com/legal/ → no content-security-policy
- FoundClickjacking protectionMedium
No HTML page sends x-frame-options. Without X-Frame-Options (or a CSP frame-ancestors directive) the pages can be embedded in a frame on another site and overlaid with invisible controls.
- https://www.itres.com/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-1-high-fidelity-hyperspectral-sensor-system/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-2-micro-imagers/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-3-sensors-for-space/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/airborne-surveys/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/supporting-products/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/applications/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/why-itres/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/quality-management/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/our-history/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/itres-in-the-world/ → no x-frame-options
- https://www.itres.com/legal/ → no x-frame-options
- FoundMIME sniffing protectionLow
No HTML page sends x-content-type-options. Without X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff a browser may run a file as a script because of its contents rather than its declared type.
- https://www.itres.com/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-1-high-fidelity-hyperspectral-sensor-system/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-2-micro-imagers/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/sensor-line-3-sensors-for-space/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/airborne-surveys/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/supporting-products/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/applications/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/why-itres/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/quality-management/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/our-history/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/itres-in-the-world/ → no x-content-type-options
- https://www.itres.com/legal/ → no x-content-type-options
- FoundVulnerable JavaScript librariesMedium
2 libraries with published vulnerabilities: jQuery 2.0.2, jQuery 2.10.0. Whether they are exploitable depends on how the site uses them, but each has a fixed release.
- jQuery 2.0.2 in https://www.itres.com/wp-content/themes/fluid/assets/js/modules/plugins/jquery.…: CVE-2015-9251 (XSS via cross-domain AJAX), CVE-2019-11358 (prototype pollution), CVE-2020-11022, CVE-2020-11023 (XSS via HTML passed to DOM methods); fixed in 3.5.0
- jQuery 2.10.0 in https://www.itres.com/wp-content/plugins/gravityforms/js/placeholders.jquery.mi…: CVE-2015-9251 (XSS via cross-domain AJAX), CVE-2019-11358 (prototype pollution), CVE-2020-11022, CVE-2020-11023 (XSS via HTML passed to DOM methods); fixed in 3.5.0
- FoundKeys and secrets in page codeMedium
1 credential-like value found in code served to every visitor: Google API key.
- Google API key AIzaSy…Ic (39 chars) in https://www.itres.com/contact/: browser keys are expected in pages, but must be restricted by HTTP referrer and API in the Google Cloud console
- NoteThird-party scripts
Scripts run from 3 other domains without Subresource Integrity, so a compromise of any of them changes what runs on this site. (Tag managers and analytics rarely support SRI; a Content-Security-Policy that names these hosts is the usual control.)
- www.googletagmanager.com (40 script tags)
- www.google.com (40 script tags)
- maps.google.com (1 script tag)
6 checks passed, 3 not applicable
- OKHTTPS
All 164 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.
- OKSoftware version disclosure
The Server header names a product without a version, and there is no X-Powered-By header.
- OKMixed content
No HTTPS page loads a script, stylesheet, font or image over plain HTTP.
- OKForms over HTTPS
9 forms found, all on HTTPS pages posting to HTTPS addresses.
- OKExposed files and listings
None of the crawled URLs is a configuration file, backup, dump, repository folder or directory listing.
- OKSensitive paths in robots.txt
robots.txt does not point at admin, backup or private paths.
- Not applicableReferrer policy
This scan predates the crawler recording the headers this check needs. Rescan the site to check it.
- Not applicablePermissions policy
This scan predates the crawler recording the headers this check needs. Rescan the site to check it.
- Not applicableCookie flags
This scan predates the crawler recording the headers this check needs. Rescan the site to check it.
A passive review of what the crawl recorded: response headers, page and script contents and the URLs it found. It does not probe the site, test TLS settings or look for files that were not linked. Generated automatically; verify each finding against your own site before acting on it.
Earlier scans of itres.com
No other scans of this site yet.
Sites scoring near itres.com
Their neighbours in the SEO rank table, which orders every scanned site by health score.
- themanshops.comDR 1275/100 · rank 1511 · 33 pages
- e-accounting.bizDR 175/100 · rank 1511 · 63 pages
- discrepublic.caDR 2275/100 · rank 1511 · 186 pages
- plausible.ioDR 9074/100 · rank 1582 · 455 pages
- www.so-good.atDR 2674/100 · rank 1582 · 427 pages
- www.brownfuneralhomeswv.comDR 3474/100 · rank 1582 · 258 pages
DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.
This report was produced by the DIY SEO Hub Site Spider crawling itres.com from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.
Own itres.com?
- Claim this site to manage the listing, hide it from the public lists, or keep it.
- Want it gone instead? Ask through the support form or e-mail support@diyseohub.com, naming itres.com. Removal needs no account and no proof of purchase.