Skip to main content

Security report for artaneon.com

Artaneon · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Artaneon is a small German-based company specializing in coaching and consulting services that help businesses integrate artificial intelligence into their marketing strategies. The website is hosted on WordPress.com and uses modern WordPress technologies such as Gutenberg and Jetpack. The content is well-structured and relevant, targeting marketing professionals interested in AI tools and techniques. However, the site lacks critical security configurations such as a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS enforcement, which significantly impacts its security posture. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. Social media presence is strong, providing trust signals and engagement channels. Overall, the business demonstrates a good level of digital maturity but requires urgent improvements in security and privacy compliance to enhance trust and protect users.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 100 · Critical
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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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"

    • 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';…

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

Keep watching artaneon.com

This scan found 20 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
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
51

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 positions itself as a niche expert in AI-driven marketing coaching, offering practical demonstrations and consulting on generative AI tools for content creation and campaign optimization. Its business model focuses on personalized coaching rather than product sales. The target audience includes marketing teams and businesses seeking to leverage AI for efficiency and ROI improvements. The website content and social media integration indicate active engagement and content marketing efforts. The lack of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a preference for controlled communication via contact forms. No parent or subsidiary relationships are evident. The company appears to be in an early growth phase with a focus on establishing market presence through educational content.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, despite the presence of an HSTS header which is ineffective without HTTPS. No modern TLS protocols or strong cipher suites are enabled, and OCSP stapling is not configured. Security headers beyond HSTS are not detected. There is no public disclosure of security policies, incident response plans, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Forms are present but no explicit security measures such as CAPTCHA or input validation are visible in the HTML. The site is hosted on WordPress.com, which generally provides baseline security, but the missing SSL configuration is a critical vulnerability. Overall, the site is at risk of interception and lacks transparency in security governance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and strong cipher suites to secure communications.
  3. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR.
  4. Implement and disclose a security policy and incident response plan to build trust and readiness.
  5. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  6. Enhance form security with CAPTCHA or other anti-abuse measures and ensure secure data handling.
  7. Improve accessibility features and conduct audits to ensure compliance with standards.
  8. Optimize performance metrics and resource loading to improve user experience and SEO.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Gutenberg block editor and hosted on WordPress.com infrastructure with nginx as the web server. It uses Jetpack for additional functionality and WordPress.com analytics for tracking. The site loads multiple CSS and JS resources from WordPress.com CDN domains. Performance data is not available, but the site appears to have moderate mobile optimization and basic accessibility. The absence of SSL and modern TLS protocols is a significant technical deficiency. The site uses standard WordPress themes and plugins without custom frameworks. There is room for modernization in security and performance optimization to reduce technical debt and improve resilience.
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 artaneon.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 artaneon.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.