Skip to main content

Security report for alinea.ch

Other · N/a

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website alinea.ch presents minimal content, primarily a looping muted video with no textual or interactive elements. There is no visible contact information, privacy or cookie policies, or terms of service, which limits user trust and compliance with data protection regulations. The WHOIS data is privacy protected, providing no transparent registrant details. Technically, the site uses basic HTML with a linked stylesheet and a video asset but lacks modern SEO, accessibility, or security features. The security posture is weak due to absence of security headers and unclear SSL status. Overall, the site appears to be a placeholder or under development with limited business information and digital maturity.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

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

Keep watching alinea.ch

This scan found 26 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
57
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
40
Average
46

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

Due to the lack of business-related content, no clear market positioning, business model, or target audience can be determined. The absence of contact details and company information suggests the site is not actively used for commercial or customer engagement purposes. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable. The minimal content and privacy-protected WHOIS data limit insights into the company's operations or strategic positioning.

Security posture

The website lacks visible security best practices such as HTTPS enforcement, security headers, or vulnerability disclosures. No incident response or security policy information is provided. The absence of forms reduces attack surface but also indicates limited user interaction. Privacy compliance is poor due to missing policies. The overall security maturity is low, exposing potential risks if the site is expanded without proper controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  3. Add clear contact information including email and phone to improve credibility and support.
  4. Incorporate security headers and conduct vulnerability assessments to enhance security posture.
  5. Develop meaningful website content and metadata to improve SEO, user experience, and business communication.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal, consisting mainly of a looping muted video with no textual content.
  2. No metadata beyond basic charset, viewport, title, and stylesheet link.
  3. No forms, no contact information, no social media links, no scripts detected.
  4. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  5. No security headers or advanced technical configurations visible.
  6. No SEO or accessibility features detected.
  7. WHOIS data indicates privacy protection, limiting registrant transparency.
  8. No evidence of advertising, tracking, or analytics services.
  9. Website appears to be a placeholder or under development.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses basic HTML5 with a linked CSS stylesheet and a single video asset. No JavaScript libraries or frameworks are detected. The lack of metadata beyond charset, viewport, and title limits SEO effectiveness. Mobile optimization is basic due to viewport meta tag but no responsive design elements are evident. Accessibility features are minimal. Hosting provider and CMS are not identifiable from the provided data. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content but could be improved with optimization. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and would benefit from modernization and enhancement.
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 alinea.ch. 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 alinea.ch.

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.