Skip to main content

Security report for ate.consulting

IGT Geotechnik und Tunnelbau Ziviltechniker G.m.b.H. · Transportation · Austria

Partial score · DNS & email only

30/100

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

Austrian Tunnel Engineers (ATE) is a specialized engineering consultancy focused on complex tunnel construction projects worldwide. The company emphasizes its Austrian roots and over 35 years of cumulative experience, offering a wide range of services including project design, geotechnical and structural engineering, consulting, and site supervision. The website presents a professional and comprehensive overview of their expertise and project portfolio, targeting infrastructure developers and engineering firms. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with optimization plugins but lacks a valid SSL certificate, resulting in insecure HTTP connections. Security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS, lack of security headers, and no advanced SSL configurations. Privacy compliance is good with a clear privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is content-rich and professionally designed but requires urgent security improvements to protect users and enhance trust.

Scanned

3 of 7 checks could not complete. The site may be unreachable or blocking automated scans, so the results below cover only what could be checked. Try a rescan later.

NIS2 and GDPR posture

NIS2 outside view
Not assessed
GDPR outside view
Not assessed

Both readouts depend on the site's pages, which could not be loaded in this scan.

Priority findings

2 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  2. 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 ate.consulting

This scan found 5 issues across 4 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
Email security
50
DNS health
50
Network security
20
Average
30

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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

ATE positions itself as a global specialist in tunnel engineering with a strong Austrian heritage. Their business model revolves around engineering consultancy and project supervision in the transportation sector. The company targets government agencies, construction firms, and infrastructure developers. Their portfolio includes major international projects, demonstrating competitive advantages in handling complex geological challenges. The website content and structured data reflect a mature business with consistent branding and trust signals. However, the lack of DNS A/AAAA records and SSL certificate may indicate technical or operational gaps. No direct contact emails or phone numbers are provided, relying on contact forms for communication.

Security posture

The website's security posture is currently poor. It lacks a valid SSL certificate, forcing all traffic over unsecured HTTP, which exposes users to interception risks. No modern TLS protocols or security headers are implemented. The absence of HSTS, OCSP stapling, and session resumption further weakens security. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are found, and no security contact channels are provided. While no known vulnerabilities or malware are detected, the missing HTTPS is a critical issue that significantly lowers the security score and trustworthiness. Privacy compliance is adequate with GDPR-aligned cookie consent and privacy policy, but overall security hygiene needs urgent attention.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Configure and enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and disable insecure protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload options.
  4. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  5. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  6. Provide explicit company contact emails and phone numbers on the website for better communication.
Technical notes

Notes

The website runs on WordPress CMS with Apache server and uses mod_pagespeed and Autoptimize plugins for performance optimization. Lazy loading of images and slick slider for UI are implemented. However, DNS records for A and AAAA are missing, which is unusual and may indicate DNS misconfiguration or use of external CDN without direct DNS entries. Performance metrics are missing or zero, suggesting incomplete monitoring. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design and language switching. SEO is supported by Yoast SEO structured data and meta tags. Overall, the technical infrastructure is standard but requires DNS and SSL improvements to ensure reliability and security.
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 ate.consulting. 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 ate.consulting.

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.