Skip to main content

Security report for aestuver.com

James Hardie · Energy · N/a

Low risk. 2 critical or high findings in Email security and SSL/TLS.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

0–100, higher is better. How it is calculated

The website www.aestuver.com represents a specialized business unit under the James Hardie brand, focusing on passive fire protection solutions including fire protection boards, expansion joints, and electrical fire protection for structural and tunnel applications. The site targets industry professionals and OEMs in sectors such as energy, transportation, and manufacturing. The digital infrastructure is built on ASP.NET with Kentico CMS, integrating modern marketing tools like Google Tag Manager and OneTrust for cookie consent, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS usage and cookie consent, but lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy policies, which are areas for improvement. The absence of WHOIS registration data is a notable concern for domain legitimacy, although the professional branding and corporate association mitigate some risk. Overall, the site is functional, professional, and safe for general audiences, but would benefit from enhanced transparency and security practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
Checks completed
7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

  1. (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
  2. (b) Incident handling: One indicator
  3. (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
  4. (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
  5. (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
  6. (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
  7. (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
  8. (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
  9. (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
  10. (j) Multi-factor authentication and secured communications: Not visible from outside

This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.

GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.

Priority findings

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com

Keep watching aestuver.com

This scan found 18 issues across 5 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.

Daily monitoring

Recommended

€25per month

  • TLS certificates and expiry
  • DNS records
  • SPF, DKIM and DMARC
  • Security headers
  • GDPR and NIS2 posture
  • Exposed services
  • Third-party trackers
  • Security score drift

Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.

Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.

Full report

€39.90one-time

  • The complete analysis as a PDF you can cite
  • Email delivery with an unlock code
  • Lifetime access to this report

Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.

Results by check

Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.

How this score is calculated

The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.

Counted in this score

SSL/TLS
75
Security headers
65
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
76

Not counted

  • NIS2 outside view: Re-weights evidence from the TLS, email, DNS, network and hygiene checks, so counting it would count that evidence twice. Shown on its own.
  • OffSeq Observations: An AI reading of the site, useful context but not reproducible evidence. Shown on its own.

Findings that cap the score at 49

Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.

  • The certificate is not trusted by browsers
  • The website is not served over HTTPS
  • A database, remote desktop, file-sharing or Telnet service is reachable from the internet
  • The page loads a script from a compromised source
  • The domain registration has expired
  • SPF authorises every server to send mail as the domain

Partial scans

When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.

Risk levels

  • Critical0–25
  • High26–49
  • Medium50–75
  • Low76–100

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The company operates in a niche market of passive fire protection materials, leveraging the reputation of its parent company James Hardie. Its business model is B2B, supplying specialized construction materials primarily for tunnels, infrastructure, and industrial OEMs. The website content and navigation reflect a well-structured product catalog and corporate information, supporting sales and marketing efforts. Partnerships with Fermacell and integration within the James Hardie group strengthen its market position. The lack of direct contact emails or phone numbers on the site suggests a controlled communication channel, likely via contact forms. The site’s moderate size and content quality indicate a medium-sized enterprise with a focused market presence.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and a cookie consent mechanism, demonstrating baseline security and privacy awareness. However, no security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, or HSTS were detected, which could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. No direct evidence of vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data was found in the HTML content. The absence of explicit privacy policies, terms of service, or incident response contacts limits transparency and compliance visibility. The WHOIS data absence raises questions about domain registration legitimacy, which is a security and trust concern. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires enhancements in headers, policy disclosures, and domain registration transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Add standard security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Verify and publish WHOIS domain registration details to improve domain legitimacy and trustworthiness.
  4. Provide explicit contact information for data protection officers and incident response to support GDPR and security incident management.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability scans to identify and remediate potential risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
James Hardie
Description
AESTUVER® INTELLIGENT FIRE PROTECTION - passive fire protection solutions and products.
Key services
Fire protection boards, Expansion joints, Electrical fire protection, Special constructions, Accessories for fire protection solutions
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
ASP.NET WebForms, JavaScript, CSS, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
ASP.NET
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content about fire protection products.
  2. No WHOIS data available, which is unusual for an active commercial domain.
  3. Cookie consent is implemented indicating GDPR awareness.
  4. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on homepage HTML.
  5. Contact is available via a contact form but no direct emails or phone numbers found in HTML.
  6. Use of modern marketing and tracking tools like Google Tag Manager and OneTrust.
  7. No security headers detected in provided data; potential area for improvement.
  8. No visible security or incident response contact information.
  9. Website content is professional and industry-specific with no adult or questionable content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature ASP.NET WebForms framework with Kentico CMS, indicating a stable but somewhat legacy technology stack. It uses standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS, with integration of third-party services like Google Tag Manager and OneTrust for analytics and cookie compliance. The site is mobile responsive and well-structured for SEO, with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement by optimizing scripts and assets. Accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced to meet higher standards. The lack of visible security headers and incomplete WHOIS data represent technical risks that should be addressed to improve overall site robustness and trust.
Standards and sources

Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with aestuver.com. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.

Overall rating
Select a rating
4000 characters remaining

We’ll email you to confirm your review and keep your details private.

Community rating

No published reviews yet. Be the first to review aestuver.com.

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Overall report quality
Select a rating
2000 characters remaining

We only use your feedback to improve Guard reports. Contact details are never shared.