Skip to main content

Security report for atir.nl

CONTRAST · Hospitality · Netherlands

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and Network security.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CONTRAST is a newly established company (2023) operating in the facility and hospitality sector in the Netherlands. The website presents a professional design built on WordPress with WPBakery Page Builder and supports multilingual content via WPML. The company appears to target businesses requiring facility management and hospitality services. The technical infrastructure includes modern web technologies such as Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management. Hosting is provided by Xynta Hosting B.V., a reputable provider. From a security perspective, the website uses HTTPS and implements a cookie consent mechanism, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. However, no explicit privacy policy, terms of service, or security policy documents were found in the provided content. Security headers are not detected, and no vulnerability disclosure or incident response information is available, which suggests room for improvement in security posture and transparency. Overall, the website is functional and moderately optimized for performance and mobile use. The absence of explicit contact information and privacy documentation limits trust and compliance confidence. Strategic recommendations include publishing comprehensive privacy and security policies, enabling DNSSEC, adding security headers, and providing clear contact channels for security incidents. These steps will enhance compliance, security, and user trust.

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

4 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. 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 atir.nl

This scan found 21 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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
95
Average
63

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 operates as a service provider in the hospitality and facility management sector, targeting organizations needing such services in the Netherlands. The business model is service-oriented with a focus on facility and hospitality solutions. The website's use of marketing tools like ActiveCampaign and Google Tag Manager suggests an intent to engage customers and track marketing effectiveness. The domain age aligns with a new business venture, and no suspicious patterns are detected. The company currently lacks visible certifications or trust badges, which could be considered for future credibility enhancement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates basic security maturity with HTTPS enabled and cookie consent implemented via Cookiebot. However, the lack of security headers and absence of published security policies or incident response contacts indicate gaps in security best practices. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The domain registration is transparent and consistent with the business profile. To improve security posture, the company should implement security headers, publish a security policy, and provide a security.txt file for vulnerability disclosure. These measures will improve compliance with GDPR and NIS2 directives and enhance incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service on the website.
  2. Enable DNSSEC for the domain to enhance DNS security.
  3. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Add a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and incident reporting.
  5. Provide clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CONTRAST
Description
CONTRAST is a company operating in the facility and hospitality sector, offering services related to facility management and hospitality solutions.
Key services
Facility management, Hospitality services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, WPBakery Page Builder, Google Fonts, Google Tag Manager, Cookiebot, jQuery
Frameworks
WPML (multilingual)
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data detected in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Cookiebot
Marketing tools
ActiveCampaign (implied by cookie provider)
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress with WPBakery Page Builder
  2. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented via Cookiebot
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found in the provided content
  4. No explicit contact emails, phone numbers, or addresses found in the provided HTML snippet
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  6. No security headers detected in the provided data
  7. Domain is newly registered in 2023 with a reputable hosting provider
  8. Website content is in Dutch with English alternate language available
  9. Use of Google Tag Manager and ActiveCampaign cookies indicates marketing and analytics tracking
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 using the Salient theme and WPBakery Page Builder, indicating a modern CMS platform with drag-and-drop design capabilities. It uses WPML for multilingual support and integrates Google Fonts for typography. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and marketing tag management, while Cookiebot manages cookie consent. Hosting is provided by Xynta Hosting B.V. Performance is moderate with preconnect and preload optimizations for fonts and images. Accessibility features are basic, and SEO optimization is present but could be enhanced with more comprehensive metadata and structured data. No critical technical debt or vulnerabilities were detected in the provided 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 atir.nl. 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 atir.nl.

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.