https://xinyong.boai.gov.cn Export & share

CN · CNY (¥) · Estimated Applicable regulations: PIPL Dev cost: ¥350/hr How jurisdiction is detected

Scanned

2026-10-21 08:41 UTC

Worker

🇪🇸 Madrid

Duration

4.0m

Vs prev

—

Global Performance

5/5 locations ✓

High global latency — average 14772ms across 5 locations, fastest from New York (14025ms), slowest from Amsterdam (16288ms). No CDN (document or assets). Cache-Control header is missing. 5 locations above the 500ms target.

Spain - Madrid

Full audit

14332ms

DNS 1319ms · TLS 365ms

United Stated - New York

14025ms

DNS 475ms · TLS 490ms

Netherlands - Amsterdam

16288ms

DNS 935ms · TLS 2630ms

Brazil - Sao Paulo

14197ms

DNS 359ms · TLS 706ms

Singapore - Singapore

15019ms

DNS 83ms · TLS 1734ms

CDN: No CDN (document or assets) · Avg TTFB: 14772ms · Cache: No cache headers

Audit overview

Accessibility needs attention; the rest of the categories are in good shape.

Fix Priority Matrix

5 findings

Impact

Quick Wins

High impact, low effort — start here.

Strategic

High impact, requires investment.

Easy Improvements

Small gains, minimal effort.

Nothing in this quadrant — good news.

Deprioritize

Low impact, high effort — do last.

Nothing in this quadrant — good news.

← Low effort High effort →

Screenshots

DESKTOP + MOBILE

Desktop

Mobile

Your mail setup has problems.

boai.gov.cn fails 2 mail checks: No DMARC record found, No SPF record found. This is the kind of misconfiguration that sends your mail to spam.

Get a full deliverability audit — €179, 48h →

Top Priorities (5)

Sorted by impact

'unsafe-eval' found in script source

Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.

Security › Content Security Policy

'unsafe-inline' found in script source

Unsafe value (unsafe-inline, unsafe-eval) in script-src defeats CSP's main protection — XSS injections can execute again.

Security › Content Security Policy

Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages

Soft 404s (HTTP 200 for missing pages) confuse Google — it indexes the 'not found' page as real content and ranks it.

Accessibility › 404 Error Page

47 inline style attribute(s) detected

Inline style attributes force `style-src 'unsafe-inline'` in any CSP -- effectively negating CSP's XSS-mitigation value for stylesheets.

Security › CSP Inline-Style Readiness

Cookie 'JSESSIONID' has no SameSite attribute

Without SameSite, cookies ride along on cross-site requests — enabling CSRF attacks that SameSite=Lax blocks for free.

Security › Cookie Security

What fixing these means. Your site performs reasonably well, but a few targeted fixes could meaningfully improve results. Accessibility issues exclude users who rely on assistive technology — an estimated 15% of your potential audience. Addressing the critical issues below would have the most immediate impact on your user trust.

4 security gaps detected — browsers may warn visitors about your site.

1 accessibility issue excludes users who rely on assistive technology.

Business case

What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.

Return on investment

¥5,863 investment → ¥33,290/month returns

Investment

¥5,863

16.8 h · 5 findings

Monthly returns

¥33,290

¥399,480/yr

Payback

0.2 mo

+6714% Y1

Or — fix only the top 3 findings

¥4,375 → 0.1 mo payback · +9031% Y1

Optimistic scenario assuming the top 3 capture most of the upside. Real-world recovery typically falls between this projection and the full-fix ROI above.

¥263 — in quick wins — start here for the fastest payback

Figures combine localized regulatory fine ceilings, search/conversion value priced against local CPC, and bandwidth waste estimates. Results depend on implementation quality and audience composition. Not legal or financial advice.

Conversion barriers

3 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~24%.

Barriers

1 crit 2 warn

Bounce delta

+24pp

added vs baseline

Score

Speed

Trust

Usability

Content

Nav

No viewport meta tag
Mobile browsers render at desktop width and shrink — text unreadable, tap targets miniature
→ Add <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
Page loads in 3.8s
Every additional 100ms above 2.5s costs conversions — you're 1.3s over
→ Target <2.5s LCP: defer non-critical scripts and optimize the hero image
HSTS is enabled but max-age is short (172800s)
First-visit protection is in place, but browsers forget the policy sooner than recommended
→ Raise Strict-Transport-Security max-age to at least 31536000 (1 year)

Preliminary CRO audit — each barrier links to the tab with detailed analysis.

Remediation cost

¥5,863 16.8 developer hours at ¥350/hr

Quick wins

¥263 2 fixes in ~45 minutes

Start here for the best return on investment

Cost by category

Cost by effort level

Adjust assumptions

Team composition

Multiplier applied to dev hours to reflect QA, design, and PM overhead. Use Dev only for solo work; Full team for projects with formal review processes.

Custom rate

¥ /hr

Rates reflect fully-loaded developer cost including overhead

How developer rates are sourced

Warning:Cost of inaction

¥24,330 / month at risk ~¥291,960 / year if left unfixed

Bounce-Rate Cost

¥24,329 /mo

+24.3pp bounce · ~2,433 lost visitors/mo

CPC: CNY 10.00

Bandwidth Waste

¥0.86 /mo

1503.3 MB/mo × 0.571 CNY/GB

Optimize transfer: save ~150 KB per page load
Saves ¥0.86/mo

Compliance figures represent the statutory maximum fine for the most severe triggered category, capped per regulation — not the sum of per-finding penalties. Based on published regulatory fine ranges. This is not legal advice.

Compliance methodology · SEO assumptions · Bandwidth model

Your performance is already good — improvements may show diminishing returns

Monthly visitors

Unique monthly visitors from your analytics

Conversion rate (%)

Purchases, signups, or key actions

Avg. order value

Optional — for revenue estimation

additional conversions/month

more engaged visitors from reduced bounce

potential monthly revenue

Current bounce (est.)

After fixes (est.)

Estimated bounce reduction

Fix 3 critical issues to capture this value

How this is calculated

Based on Google/Deloitte research ("Milliseconds Make Millions") showing a ~7% bounce rate increase per additional second of LCP above the 2.5s "Good" threshold.

Your site's LCP: → estimated after fixes.

These are estimates based on industry research — actual results vary

Bounce-rate model & assumptions

Your data stays in your browser — nothing is sent to our servers

Lighthouse

Mobile

First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.

1.81 s

Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.

3.78 s

Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.

1 ms

Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.

0.000

Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.

9.55 s

Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.

3.80 s

Desktop

First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.

520 ms

Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.

2.01 s

Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.

0 ms

Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.

0.005

Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.

4.01 s

Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.

2.02 s

Categories

Avg score 78.5

Performance

Good

/100

All checks pass

Security

2 critical

/100

'unsafe-eval' found in script source

Accessibility

1 critical

/100

Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages

Infrastructure

Good

/100

All checks pass

Compliance

Good

/100

All checks pass

Sustainability

Excellent

/100

All checks pass

How you compare

Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.

HSTS · 3315 peers

You 78

Avg 78

At average

0 50 100

Infrastructure P5Accessibility P13Sustainability P75Performance P72Security P62Compliance P61

Top 10% of HSTS sites score 95+ on Infrastructure; you're at 80 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 55% of HSTS sites See full HSTS benchmark →

Nginx · 1153 peers

You 78

Avg 75

At average

0 50 100

Infrastructure P8Sustainability P84Accessibility P21Performance P79Security P73Compliance P64

Top 10% of Nginx sites score 93+ on Infrastructure; you're at 80 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.

Better than 65% of Nginx sites See full Nginx benchmark →

Technology stack

HSTS, on Java, with Nginx CDN

3 technologies detected 3 stack layers 2 with CPE identifier Standard

Stack Architecture

Framework

HSTS

Runtime

Java

CDN

Nginx

All Detected Technologies (3)

Nginx is a web server that can also be used as a reverse proxy, load balancer, mail proxy and HTTP cache.

Categories Web servers, Reverse proxies Website https://nginx.org/en Detected by BeaverCheck Evidence Server header: nginx

This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →

Java is a class-based, object-oriented programming language that is designed to have as few implementation dependencies as possible.

Categories Programming languages Website https://java.com Detected by BeaverCheck

This technology has a CPE identifier — check for known vulnerabilities Search NVD →

HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) informs browsers that the site should only be accessed using HTTPS.

Categories Security Website https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6797#section-6.1 Detected by BeaverCheck

Observations (1)

No build tool detected

A framework (HSTS) was detected but no bundler was identified. The build tool may not be detectable from output patterns, or the site may use the framework's built-in bundler.

Show your score

Drop this badge on your README, marketing site, or status page. It auto-updates every time the audit re-runs and links back to this report.

This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.

Markdown

[![BeaverCheck](https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxinyong.boai.gov.cn)](https://beavercheck.com/sites/boai.gov.cn)

HTML

<a href="https://beavercheck.com/sites/boai.gov.cn"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxinyong.boai.gov.cn" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>

Image URL

https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxinyong.boai.gov.cn

Fix Plan

Three-week roadmap to ship the audit's findings, with one-click copy targets for your tracker.

Three-week fix plan

3 sprints · 17h total → projected B (86)

Sprint 1: Quick Wins

Highest ROI — low effort, high impact

2 findings 1h → B (80)

· Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
· Cookie 'JSESSIONID' has no SameSite attribute

Sprint 2: Core Fixes

Medium effort, high structural impact

1 findings 4h → B (82)

· 47 inline style attribute(s) detected

Sprint 3: Strategic Improvements

Higher effort, long-term payoff

2 findings 12h → B (86)

· 'unsafe-eval' found in script source
· 'unsafe-inline' found in script source