Other · N/a
Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.
The website bir.org currently serves a robot challenge screen implementing a client-side proof-of-work CAPTCHA mechanism to mitigate automated access. This indicates the presence of a Web Application Firewall (WAF) or similar security control actively blocking direct content access. Due to this, the actual business content is inaccessible, limiting the ability to analyze the company's services, policies, or contact information. The domain is long-established, registered since 1996 with Gandi SAS, which suggests legitimacy, but the lack of DNSSEC and visible security headers indicates room for improvement in domain and site security. Technically, the site uses advanced JavaScript cryptographic functions and Web Workers to perform the CAPTCHA challenge, demonstrating a modern approach to bot mitigation. However, the page lacks SEO optimization, accessibility features, and any visible business or compliance documentation. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or incident response information is available. Security posture is moderate due to the presence of the CAPTCHA challenge but is weakened by missing security headers and lack of visible SSL configuration details. The absence of privacy and cookie policies and contact information reduces compliance and trustworthiness. Overall, the site is currently inaccessible for normal users without passing the challenge, which significantly impacts user experience and trust. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, publishing privacy and cookie policies, adding contact and incident response information, implementing security headers, and ensuring HTTPS enforcement. These steps will improve compliance, security posture, and user trust.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
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.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
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
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.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention bir.org, from OffSeq Breach.
3 subdomains affected
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 bir.org.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Generic detected. Page is a robot challenge screen with a client-side proof-of-work CAPTCHA, indicating a WAF or security challenge blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with bir.org. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review bir.org.