Security report for agilis.de
agilis Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG · Transportation · Germany
High risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.
agilis Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG is a regional railway company based in Regensburg, Germany, operating passenger rail services primarily in Bavaria. Since December 2010, it has been responsible for approximately 10% of the Bavarian regional passenger rail market, providing reliable and customer-focused transportation services. The company targets regional commuters and travelers within Bavaria, offering ticket sales, service notifications, and customer support through its website and multiple social media channels. The business model is based on public transport contracts with the Free State of Bavaria, emphasizing regional connectivity and service quality. Technically, the website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with modern plugins such as Elementor for page building and Yoast SEO for search engine optimization. The site includes cookie consent mechanisms compliant with GDPR, uses HTTPS with strong SSL configuration, and integrates Google Analytics for traffic analysis. Accessibility features and mobile optimization are well implemented, providing a good user experience across devices. From a security perspective, the site employs standard security headers and enforces HTTPS, with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. However, there is no publicly available security policy or incident response contact information, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. The cookie consent and privacy policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant, reflecting a mature privacy posture. Overall, the website presents a professional, trustworthy, and user-friendly digital presence for agilis, supporting its role as a key regional transportation provider. Strategic recommendations include publishing a dedicated security policy, adding incident response contacts, and maintaining regular security audits to sustain and improve the security posture.
Scanned
NIS2 and GDPR posture
- GDPR outside view
- 43/ 100 · High
- Checks completed
- 7of 7
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
- (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
- (b) Incident handling: One indicator
- (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
- (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
- (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
- (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
- (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
- (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
- (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
- (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
6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
GDPR outside view
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
- Critical
EU business without adequate privacy measures
EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements
What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures
- High
No Cookie Policy found
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
- Critical
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.
- Critical
Unable to retrieve SSL certificate
Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information
What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured
- Critical
Security headers
Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.
- High
Missing X-Frame-Options header
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
- CWE-1021
- OWASP A06:2025
- CAPEC-103
- ASVS V3.4.6
- OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
- RFC 7034
- High
Missing Content-Security-Policy header
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
- ASVS V3.4.3
- OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…
- High
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
Keep watching agilis.de
This scan found 24 issues across 6 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
- 0
- Security headers
- 30
- Email security
- 70
- DNS health
- 65
- Network security
- 20
- GDPR outside view
- 43
- Average
- 38
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
Security posture
Recommendations
- Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
- Provide clear incident response contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
- Implement and publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosures.
- Regularly review and update third-party plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
- Enhance monitoring and validation of form inputs to prevent injection and spam attacks.
Site observations
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Business
- Company
- agilis Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
- Description
- Regional railway company operating passenger rail services in Bavaria, Germany, responsible for about 10% of the Bavarian SPNV market.
- Key services
- Passenger rail transport, Ticket sales, Service notifications, Customer support
- Content quality
- good
- Branding
- consistent
Technology
- Stack
- WordPress 6.8.1, Yoast SEO plugin, Elementor page builder, jQuery, Borlabs Cookie plugin, Instagram Feed Pro plugin
- Frameworks
- WordPress, Elementor
- Platforms
- WordPress CMS
- Performance
- moderate
- Mobile
- good
- Accessibility
- good
- SEO
- good
Security
- Observed score
- 85/100
- Good practices seen
- HTTPS enforced
- Cookie consent mechanism
- No exposed sensitive data in HTML
- Use of security plugins (honeypot for contact forms)
Analytics and tracking
- Services
- Google Analytics
- Tracking level
- moderate
- Privacy practices
- good
Advertising
- Tracking pixels
- Google Analytics (via gtag), Borlabs Cookie tracking
- Marketing tools
- Borlabs Cookie Consent
- Transparency
- good
Site quality
- Design
- good
- User experience
- good
- Content relevance
- good
- Navigation
- good
- Professionalism
- good
- Trustworthiness
- high
Key observations
- Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
- Content is comprehensive and relevant to regional rail passengers.
- Multiple social media channels are linked and active.
- Cookie consent and privacy policies are implemented in compliance with GDPR.
- No signs of malicious or suspicious activity detected.
- Use of modern WordPress plugins and SEO tools.
- Contact information is clearly presented with phone and registration/login options.
- No security policy or incident response information publicly available.
Technical notes
Notes
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.
- MITRE CWE (opens in a new tab)4.20 (2026-04-30) · CWE Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- MITRE CAPEC (opens in a new tab)3.9 (2023-01-24) · CAPEC Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
- Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
- Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
- NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
- NIST NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens in a new tab)live records · Public domain (NVD); CVE® records © MITRE, free use
- W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
- ETSI EN 301 549 (opens in a new tab)V3.2.1 (2021-03), clause headings · Clause numbers and titles only (© ETSI)
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Retrieved 2026-10-25
Feedback on this report
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with agilis.de. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review agilis.de.