Skip to main content

Security report for aspiria.de

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 2 other checks.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.aspiria.com presents a professional business presence with a focus on a modern and clean design using WordPress CMS and the Divi theme. The site is accessible without any WAF or security challenge blocking, indicating good availability. However, the absence of WHOIS registration data raises concerns about domain legitimacy and ownership transparency. The website lacks visible privacy policies, cookie consent mechanisms, and contact information, which are critical for compliance and user trust. Technically, the site uses common web technologies and plugins but does not demonstrate advanced security configurations or analytics integrations. Overall, the security posture is basic, with recommendations to improve security headers, privacy compliance, and domain registration transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
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

7 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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

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

Keep watching aspiria.de

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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
53
Average
53

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 business behind aspiria.com appears to be a small to medium-sized entity operating in an unspecified sector, likely related to technology or consulting given the professional presentation. The lack of explicit business descriptions, contact details, or certifications limits the ability to assess market positioning or competitive advantages. The website targets a German-speaking audience but does not provide detailed service or product information. There is no evidence of partnerships or subsidiaries. The business model and revenue streams are not discernible from the website content.

Security posture

Security maturity is low to moderate. The site uses HTTPS but lacks visible security headers and does not disclose security policies or incident response contacts. No vulnerability disclosures or security certifications are present. The absence of WHOIS data is a significant red flag for domain legitimacy. No tracking or analytics scripts were detected, reducing privacy concerns but also limiting business intelligence. The site should implement standard security best practices, including CSP, HSTS, and clear privacy and security policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is publicly available or justified if privacy protected.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance statements.
  3. Add clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security inquiries.
  4. Implement and verify security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments to identify and remediate risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery, WordPress, Divi Theme, WPML, WP Estimation Form Plugin, Supreme Modules Pro for Divi, Divi Menus, Ajax Search Pro
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
30/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with full content and no WAF blocking.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating possible unregistered domain or privacy protection.
  3. Website uses WordPress CMS with Divi theme and multiple plugins.
  4. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided content.
  5. No explicit contact information such as emails or phone numbers found in the content.
  6. No security policies or incident response contacts detected.
  7. No certifications or compliance badges visible.
  8. Website content is primarily in German language.
  9. No analytics or tracking scripts explicitly detected.
  10. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with the Divi theme and several plugins including WPML for multilingual support and WP Estimation Form for interactive forms. The site loads multiple CSS and JS assets from its own domain, indicating self-hosted resources. jQuery is used as the primary JavaScript library. Performance appears moderate with no explicit optimization indicators. Mobile responsiveness is good due to Divi's responsive design. Accessibility features are basic, with no ARIA landmarks or advanced accessibility tags detected. SEO optimization is basic with meta tags present but no structured data or Open Graph tags found in the provided content. The site lacks analytics or marketing tools, limiting data-driven insights.
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 aspiria.de. 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 aspiria.de.

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.