Security report for attendo.com

Name: Dark-web exposure summary for attendo.com
Creator: OffSeq Breach

Attendo AB · Healthcare · Sweden

High risk. 18 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Attendo AB is a leading Nordic care company specializing in providing cost-effective and modern care services across Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Founded in 1985, the company has established a strong market position with a broad portfolio including elderly care, home care, and personalized functional support through subsidiaries such as Unika and Viljan. The website reflects a mature digital presence with professional design, clear navigation, and comprehensive content tailored to its target audience of individuals and public sector clients in the Nordic region. Technically, the site leverages modern technologies including jQuery, Cookiebot for consent management, Google Tag Manager, and Microsoft Application Insights for analytics, hosted likely behind Cloudflare for performance and security. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and cookie consent mechanisms in place, though explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not published. Overall, the website demonstrates high professionalism, compliance with GDPR, and a trustworthy digital footprint.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view: 88/ 100 · Low
Checks completed: 7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
(b) Incident handling: One indicator
(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
(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

18 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

Network security
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Telnet
  Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: SMB
  Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL
  Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Oracle
  Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MySQL
  Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: RDP
  Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
  Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Redis
  Port 6379 (Redis) is publicly accessible - Redis - In-memory database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Redis using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB
  Port 27017 (MongoDB) is publicly accessible - MongoDB - NoSQL database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MongoDB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- 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
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC
  Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint
  What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS
  Port 139 (NetBIOS) is publicly accessible - NetBIOS - Windows file sharing
  What to do: Consider restricting access to NetBIOS or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch
  Port 9200 (Elasticsearch) is publicly accessible - Elasticsearch - Search engine
  What to do: Consider restricting access to Elasticsearch or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
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"
  References
  - CWE-319
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V3.4.1
  - RFC 6797 §6.1.1
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: hsts_min_age 63072000
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
- High
  Missing X-Frame-Options header
  Prevents clickjacking attacks
  What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
  References
  - CWE-1021
  - OWASP A06:2025
  - CAPEC-103
  - ASVS V3.4.6
  - OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
  - RFC 7034
- 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
  References
  - 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';…
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
  References
  - CWE-327
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V12.1.1
  - RFC 8996
  - RFC 7568
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: tls_versions TLSv1.2, TLSv1.3
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-8(1): NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8(1): Cryptographic Protection
- High
  Weak SSL Key Length
  SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak
  What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key
  References
  - CWE-326
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(b): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(b): Cryptography
  - NIST SC-13: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-13: Cryptographic Protection

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

Keep watching attendo.com

This scan found 33 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: 42
Security headers: 15
Email security: 85
DNS health: 85
Network security: 0
GDPR outside view: 88
Average: 53
After the cap: 49

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 · found on this site
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 attendo.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records: 2
Employees: 0
Customers: 0
Third parties: 2
Weak passwords: 50%

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for attendo.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach Monitor on Breach

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Attendo operates in the healthcare sector with a focus on individualized care solutions in the Nordic countries. Its business model centers on delivering scalable and cost-efficient care services, supported by a large workforce and multiple subsidiaries. The company maintains a transparent investor relations section and sustainability focus, indicating a well-rounded corporate strategy. Partnerships with digital service providers and recruitment platforms enhance operational capabilities. The website's structured data and clear branding reinforce its market leadership and credibility.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security foundation with HTTPS and cookie consent compliance. Use of Microsoft Application Insights and Google Analytics is managed with user consent. However, the absence of a dedicated security policy, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests room for improvement in transparency and readiness. Security headers are implied but not explicitly documented. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The security score is good but could be enhanced by publishing formal policies and contact channels.

Recommendations

Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security frameworks and practices.
Provide clear incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
Ensure all recommended security headers are explicitly set and documented.
Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and cookies for compliance and security.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses

Legal name

Attendo AB

Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company: Attendo AB
Description: På Attendo ger vi dig den omsorg du behöver, på det sätt du vill, oavsett var vi möter våra kunder runt om i Norden.
Key services: Elderly care, Home care, Personalized functional support, Family and individual care solutions
Content quality: excellent
Branding: consistent

Technology

Stack: jQuery 3.7.0, Cookiebot, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Application Insights, Tiny Slider
Performance: moderate
Mobile: good
Accessibility: good
SEO: good

Security

Observed score

85/100

Good practices seen

HTTPS enforced
Cookie consent with opt-in/out
No exposed sensitive data in HTML
Use of secure cookies (HttpOnly and Secure flags not explicitly visible but likely)

Analytics and tracking

Services: Google Analytics, Microsoft Application Insights
Tracking level: moderate
Privacy practices: good

Advertising

Ad networks: Google
Tracking pixels: Cookiebot, Microsoft Application Insights
Transparency: good

Site quality

Design: excellent
User experience: excellent
Content relevance: excellent
Navigation: excellent
Professionalism: excellent
Trustworthiness: high

Key observations

Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
Strong cookie consent mechanism implemented with detailed cookie categories.
Comprehensive contact information including phone numbers and physical addresses.
Use of modern analytics and tag management tools.
Content is professional, well-structured, and relevant to the healthcare sector.
No explicit security or incident response policies found on the website.
No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
Website uses HTTPS with good SSL configuration.
Mobile and accessibility optimizations are well implemented.

Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack including jQuery, Cookiebot, Google Tag Manager, and Microsoft Application Insights, likely running on Episerver CMS. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO is well addressed with proper meta tags and structured data. Hosting appears to be behind Cloudflare, providing CDN and security benefits. The site uses asynchronous loading for analytics scripts and has a responsive design. Opportunities exist to further optimize performance and enhance security header implementation.

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.

OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Priority findings

Network security

Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

Critical Service Exposed: SMB

Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

Critical Service Exposed: RDP

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Redis

Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS

High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch

Security headers

Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

Missing X-Frame-Options header

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

SSL/TLS

Weak Protocols Supported

Weak SSL Key Length

Keep watching attendo.com

Daily monitoring

Full report

Results by check

Security headers, 8 findings, score 15/100

SSL/TLS, 5 findings, score 42/100

Email security, 3 findings, score 85/100

DNS health, 2 findings, score 85/100

Network security, 14 findings, score 0/100

GDPR outside view, 1 finding, score 88/100

NIS2 outside view, Earlier method, rescan for details · not counted in the security score–