Scanned sites / packagingverify.com / 2026-11-04-2025

packagingverify.com scan from 2026-11-04 20:25:19 UTC DR 0

DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.

Scan 2026-11-04-2025

Scanned 2026-11-04 20:25:19 UTC, finished 2026-11-04 20:26:28 UTC

Site: https://packagingverify.com/

Download SQLite databaseEvery page and asset from this scan, with the crawl events, in one file.

97/ 100Excellent

On November 4, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 14 pages and 21 assets of packagingverify.com, starting from https://packagingverify.com/. It scored 97 out of 100, an excellent result. 1 of 33 checks found something to fix, led by meta descriptions (5); 23 checks passed. Most of the points went to meta descriptions (−2.9). 9 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 4 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: Medium3 medium and 2 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
14
Assets fetched
21
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
1 of 33
CoverageComplete crawl

35 of 35 discovered URLs were fetched. The crawl reached everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 6 link destinations on other sites were checked.

  • Title tagsOK
    0 of 5 pages have title issues. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Meta descriptions5 issues
    5 of 5 pages have meta description issues. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −2.9 points
  • HeadingsOK
    0 of 5 pages have heading issues. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sitesOK
    0 destinations answered with an error, of 6 destinations checked.
  • RedirectsOK
    0 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responsesOK
    0 URLs did not return a 2xx response.
  • Rate limitedOK
    The site did not rate limit the crawler.
  • IndexabilityOK
    0 of 13 indexable pages have indexability warnings. 1 page noindex by design.
  • Image alt textOK
    0 of 25 image references have no alt attribute. 14 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 21 fetched assets.
  • Orphan pagesOK
    0 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
  • Sitemap coverageOK
    1 sitemap listing 5 URLs: 0 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
  • Internal link counts1 noted
    Internal link counts for 14 pages; 1 worth a look.
  • Thin contentOK
    0 of 5 pages have fewer than 200 words. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format8 noted
    8 of 14 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals8 noted
    8 of 14 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives1 noted
    1 page carries a robots directive; 13 carry none.
  • Anchor textOK
    Every internal link has descriptive, followed anchor text.
  • Title and heading structureOK
    0 of 5 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 9 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length1 noted
    1 image over 100 KB; 0 with alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomaliesOK
    No redirect loops, header redirects or pages served as something other than HTML.
  • HTML and head validation14 noted
    14 of 14 pages have HTML problems: 0 with head tags outside <head>, 0 over 2 MB.
  • hreflangOK
    No page declares hreflang.
  • Structured dataOK
    No page carries structured data (5 indexable pages checked).
  • Near duplicatesOK
    No near duplicates among 5 pages with enough text to compare.
  • Soft 404sOK
    None of 14 pages answering 200 reads like an error page.
  • AccessibilityNot checked
    Not checked: the accessibility audit runs in the browser. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to run it.
  • Link positions1 noted
    1 of 5 linked pages are linked only from the template, never from another page's content.
  • PaginationOK
    No page declares rel=next or rel=prev pagination.
  • Headers and cookies2 noted
    2 cookies set by the site, 2 missing a protective flag; 12 response headers recorded across 35 URLs.
  • Orphans in searchNot checked
    Not checked: import a Search Console Pages export on the scan page to find pages Google shows that the site does not link to.
  • Link ScoreOK
    Link Score (internal PageRank, 0-100) for 14 pages; 0 hold almost none (10 or less).
  • JavaScript renderingNot checked
    Not 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 InsightsNot checked
    Not checked yet: PageSpeed Insights runs on the top pages once the crawl has finished.
  • Spelling2 noted
    2 words an English dictionary does not know, on 4 pages. Product names and jargon will appear here too.

Where this scan sits among all scanned sites

2873 sites, median 80%, average 79%

packagingverify.com scores 97%, higher than 94% of the 2873 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0751500%: 0 sites1%: 0 sites2%: 0 sites3%: 0 sites4%: 0 sites5%: 0 sites6%: 0 sites7%: 0 sites8%: 0 sites9%: 1 site10%: 0 sites11%: 0 sites12%: 0 sites13%: 0 sites14%: 1 site15%: 0 sites16%: 0 sites17%: 0 sites18%: 0 sites19%: 0 sites20%: 0 sites21%: 1 site22%: 0 sites23%: 0 sites24%: 0 sites25%: 0 sites26%: 0 sites27%: 0 sites28%: 1 site29%: 0 sites30%: 0 sites31%: 0 sites32%: 0 sites33%: 0 sites34%: 0 sites35%: 2 sites36%: 1 site37%: 1 site38%: 3 sites39%: 2 sites40%: 3 sites41%: 1 site42%: 2 sites43%: 3 sites44%: 2 sites45%: 6 sites46%: 5 sites47%: 5 sites48%: 6 sites49%: 8 sites50%: 6 sites51%: 7 sites52%: 8 sites53%: 9 sites54%: 9 sites55%: 9 sites56%: 8 sites57%: 17 sites58%: 18 sites59%: 10 sites60%: 15 sites61%: 13 sites62%: 20 sites63%: 29 sites64%: 22 sites65%: 33 sites66%: 43 sites67%: 43 sites68%: 42 sites69%: 52 sites70%: 46 sites71%: 80 sites72%: 76 sites73%: 81 sites74%: 82 sites75%: 87 sites76%: 95 sites77%: 109 sites78%: 132 sites79%: 111 sites80%: 128 sites81%: 125 sites82%: 132 sites83%: 119 sites84%: 130 sites85%: 106 sites86%: 95 sites87%: 96 sites88%: 80 sites89%: 75 sites90%: 55 sites91%: 59 sites92%: 43 sites93%: 29 sites94%: 25 sites95%: 15 sites96%: 18 sites97%: 16 sites98%: 8 sites99%: 3 sites100%: 150 sites97% here100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

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...

Start page (centre)OKRedirectErrorOrphanLinked from most pagesOne inbound link or noneRings = clicks from the start page. Size = inbound links. Drag to pan, scroll to zoom, click a page to see only its links.

Fix plan

Written by gpt-4o-mini from the scan findings

Your site has excellent health but needs meta description improvements. Focus on shortening long descriptions to enhance visibility in search results. No asset issues were found. Consider optimizing meta descriptions first for immediate impact.

  1. 1

    Shorten Meta Descriptions

    Why: 5 pages have long meta descriptions affecting visibility.

    How: Revise each description to be under 160 characters and clearer. For example, trim unnecessary details while keeping key information.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

  2. 2

    Ensure Descriptions Are Not Cut Off

    Why: Some descriptions may get cut off in search results due to pixel limits.

    How: Test each revised meta description to stay within 950 pixels, ensuring they appear fully in search results.

    Checks: meta-descriptions

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 crawl

The site packagingverify.com lacks important security headers and flags, potentially exposing it to various attacks, including clickjacking and unauthorized cookie access. Strategies to enhance security include setting a Content Security Policy and other protective headers. Addressing these issues will help secure user data and improve overall site integrity.

  • 0 high
  • 3 medium
  • 2 low
  • 0 info
  1. 1

    Missing Content Security PolicyMedium

    Why it matters: Lacking a CSP allows unrestricted loading of scripts and resources, increasing the risk of cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks.

    Fix: Add the following header: `Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self';`

    Evidence: Content Security Policy

  2. 2

    Missing X-Frame-Options HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Without this header, your site may be vulnerable to clickjacking attacks, where malicious sites can overlay your content.

    Fix: Add the following header: `X-Frame-Options: DENY` or `SAMEORIGIN`.

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  3. 3

    Cookies Missing Protective FlagsMedium

    Why it matters: Missing flags on cookies can expose them to theft via JavaScript or insecure transmission.

    Fix: Set the `Secure`, `HttpOnly`, and `SameSite` flags on cookies appropriately; for example, `Set-Cookie: ASP.NET_SessionId=YOUR_SESSION_ID; Secure; HttpOnly; SameSite=Strict`.

    Evidence: Cookie flags

  4. 4

    No Referrer PolicyLow

    Why it matters: Absence of a referrer policy could result in leaking sensitive URLs when users navigate away from your site.

    Fix: Add the following header: `Referrer-Policy: no-referrer-when-downgrade` or another suitable option.

    Evidence: Referrer policy

  5. 5

    Server Version DisclosureLow

    Why it matters: Revealing software version details could make your site more vulnerable to targeted attacks.

    Fix: Configure your server to hide the software version in the headers, potential settings vary by server configuration.

    Evidence: Software version disclosure

What the checks found

  • FoundContent Security PolicyMedium

    None of the 14 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://packagingverify.com/ → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/services → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/ppwr-regulations → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/about → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/privacy → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=regulatory-consultation → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=document-review → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=gap-assessment → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=technical-documentation → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=labelling-claims → no content-security-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=recyclability-review → 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://packagingverify.com/ → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/services → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/ppwr-regulations → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/about → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/privacy → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=regulatory-consultation → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=document-review → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=gap-assessment → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=technical-documentation → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=labelling-claims → no x-frame-options
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=recyclability-review → no x-frame-options
  • FoundReferrer policyLow

    No HTML page sends referrer-policy. Without a Referrer-Policy the full page address, including any query string, is sent to every site a visitor clicks through to.

    • https://packagingverify.com/ → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/services → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/ppwr-regulations → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/about → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/privacy → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=regulatory-consultation → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=document-review → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=gap-assessment → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=technical-documentation → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=labelling-claims → no referrer-policy
    • https://packagingverify.com/contact?service=recyclability-review → no referrer-policy
  • FoundSoftware version disclosureLow

    Responses reveal the exact server or framework version, which lets an attacker look up known vulnerabilities for it without guessing.

    • server: Microsoft-IIS/10.0 (35 responses)
  • FoundCookie flagsMedium

    2 of 2 cookies are missing protective flags. Without HttpOnly a script can read the cookie; without Secure it travels over plain HTTP; without SameSite it is sent on cross-site requests.

    • ASP.NET_SessionId (set by https://packagingverify.com/) lacks Secure
    • PvContactToken (set by https://packagingverify.com/contact) lacks SameSite
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 1 other domain 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 (14 script tags)
  • NoteSensitive paths in robots.txt

    robots.txt lists 1 path that look private. robots.txt is public and does not restrict access, so it doubles as a map for anyone probing the site; those paths need real access control.

    • Disallow: /cgi-bin/
8 checks passed, 1 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 14 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKHTTP Strict Transport Security

    strict-transport-security is set on all 14 HTML pages.

  • OKMIME sniffing protection

    x-content-type-options is set on all 14 HTML pages.

  • OKPermissions policy

    permissions-policy is set on all 14 HTML pages.

  • OKMixed content

    No HTTPS page loads a script, stylesheet, font or image over plain HTTP.

  • OKForms over HTTPS

    14 forms found, all on HTTPS pages posting to HTTPS addresses.

  • OKKeys and secrets in page code

    No API keys, tokens or private keys were found in the sampled HTML and scripts.

  • OKExposed files and listings

    None of the crawled URLs is a configuration file, backup, dump, repository folder or directory listing.

  • Not applicableVulnerable JavaScript libraries

    No recognisable library versions were found in the sampled scripts.

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.

Sites scoring near packagingverify.com

Their neighbours in the SEO rank table, which orders every scanned site by health score.

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 packagingverify.com from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.

Own packagingverify.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 packagingverify.com. Removal needs no account and no proof of purchase.