Skip to main content

Security report for artefact.org

ARTEFACT PRL · Other · France

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Artefact is a well-established cultural organization based in Strasbourg, France, specializing in the management and programming of contemporary music venues and events since 1994. The website presents a professional and content-rich platform showcasing numerous upcoming concerts and cultural activities, targeting a general French-speaking audience interested in arts and entertainment. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern plugins and libraries, optimized for performance and mobile responsiveness. Security measures include HTTPS enforcement and anti-spam protections, though explicit security headers and privacy policies are missing, indicating room for improvement in compliance and security posture. Overall, the site reflects a credible and professional cultural entity with a solid digital presence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

6 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. 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"

  3. 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 Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching artefact.org

This scan found 23 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
82
Security headers
15
Email security
55
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
55

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

Artefact operates primarily in the cultural event management sector, organizing 150 to 200 events per season with a large audience reach. Their business model revolves around venue management, event programming, and cultural mediation. The organization holds a strong regional market position with exclusive event offerings and innovative concepts. The website's use of structured data and professional design supports their market credibility. However, the lack of visible contact details and privacy documentation may limit trust for some stakeholders. Partnerships with ticketing and event platforms are implied but not explicitly detailed. Growth potential lies in expanding digital engagement and enhancing transparency.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enabled and anti-spam measures in place. The use of cookie consent tools aligns with GDPR requirements, but the absence of a privacy policy and security headers reduces compliance confidence. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident, which could hinder rapid mitigation of security issues. Recommendations include implementing security headers, publishing privacy and security policies, and establishing clear incident response contacts to strengthen security culture and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Add explicit contact information including security and abuse email addresses for incident reporting.
  4. Create and publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and improve transparency.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate potential security risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
ARTEFACT PRL
Description
ARTEFACT PRL assure depuis sa création en 1994, la gestion et la programmation des salles de musiques actuelles de la ville de strasbourg. Chaque saison artefact prl organise 150 à 200 manifestations, réunissant plus de 70 000 à 100.000 spectateurs. plus de 450 (jusqu’à 650) artistes ou formations artistiques se produisent à la Laiterie. Chaque année, artefact prl propose à la laiterie de nombreuses exclusivités à l’échelle de la province ou du territoire national ; elle développe également des concepts d’événements qui font désormais référence.
Key services
management and programming of music venues, organization of concerts and events, cultural mediation and accompaniment
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, WP Rocket, jQuery, CleanTalk Anti-Spam, Tarte au Citron (cookie consent), Glide.js (carousel), LightSlider, LightGallery
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
fast
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Anti-spam protection via CleanTalk
  • Cookie consent management via Tarte au Citron
  • Use of deferred and async scripts for performance

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Marketing tools
BugHerd
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 cultural events.
  2. No WHOIS data available publicly, indicating privacy protection.
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on the homepage HTML.
  4. Cookie consent is implemented with Tarte au Citron.
  5. No privacy policy or terms of service pages detected in the provided HTML.
  6. Use of multiple modern JavaScript libraries and WordPress plugins.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  8. No explicit security headers detected in the HTML content.
  9. Website is in French language targeting French audience.
  10. Events are well structured with dates, artists, and ticketing status.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including Yoast SEO for optimization, WP Rocket for caching, and CleanTalk for spam protection. It uses JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Glide.js, LightSlider, and LightGallery for enhanced user experience. The site is mobile optimized and loads efficiently with deferred and async script loading. However, accessibility features are basic and could be improved. The absence of explicit security headers and privacy documentation indicates technical debt in security and compliance areas. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the HTML content.
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 artefact.org. 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 artefact.org.

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.