Skip to main content

Security report for aspiro.dk

Aspiro · Non-profit · Denmark

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Aspiro is a Danish consulting firm specializing in fundraising, strategic advisory, and analysis services primarily targeting non-profit organizations and entities seeking fundraising support. The company operates a professional WordPress-based website with a clear focus on strategic consulting and fundraising in Denmark. The site demonstrates good SEO practices and uses modern technologies such as the Kadence theme, Cookiebot for cookie consent, and Google Tag Manager for analytics. However, explicit privacy policies and terms of service are not present, which could be improved to enhance compliance and user trust. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and consent mechanisms in place, but lacks advanced security headers and DNSSEC. Overall, the domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 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

5 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. 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching aspiro.dk

This scan found 22 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. See sample alerts.

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
30
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
95
Average
60

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention aspiro.dk, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for aspiro.dk right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Aspiro occupies a niche market in Denmark providing fundraising and strategic advisory services. The business model is consulting-based, focusing on helping clients at all levels with fundraising strategies. The website content and metadata indicate a small-sized company founded in 2019. The company leverages digital marketing tools like SEO plugins and Google Tag Manager but lacks visible social media presence or extensive trust signals such as certifications or testimonials. The absence of contact details on the homepage may limit direct client engagement. The company appears to maintain a consistent brand identity and targets organizations requiring fundraising expertise.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and integrates a cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR principles, indicating a baseline security and privacy posture. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement in defense-in-depth. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is provided, which could hinder timely reporting and mitigation of security issues. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided content. The security score is moderate, reflecting good practices but lacking advanced security measures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve legal compliance and user trust.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen web security.
  4. Create a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Include clear contact information and possibly social media links to improve business credibility and user engagement.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Aspiro
Description
Fundraising – Strategisk bistand og rådgivning. ASPIRO rådgiver og hjælper på alle niveauer.
Key services
Fundraising consulting, Strategic advisory, Analysis
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Kadence Theme, Cookiebot, Google Tag Manager, Rank Math SEO
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • Google Tag Manager configured with consent mode

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Rank Math SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional WordPress site focused on fundraising consulting in Denmark.
  2. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot with consent mode for Google Tag Manager.
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on the homepage or linked pages.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML content.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  6. No security headers detected in the provided data; DNSSEC not enabled.
  7. SEO metadata and structured data are well implemented.
  8. No social media links explicitly found in the provided HTML content.
  9. Site uses modern WordPress theme Kadence and Rank Math SEO plugin.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Kadence theme, a modern and responsive framework. It integrates Cookiebot for cookie consent management and Google Tag Manager for analytics, configured with consent mode to respect user privacy. SEO is enhanced using the Rank Math plugin with well-structured metadata and JSON-LD schema. The site shows good mobile optimization and moderate performance. Hosting appears to be managed via Simply.com A/S, a Danish registrar and hosting provider. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected, but the lack of advanced security headers and DNSSEC indicates some technical risks. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports the business needs but could benefit from enhanced security configurations.
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 aspiro.dk. 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 aspiro.dk.

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.