Skip to main content

Security report for cegra.cz

Cegra · Technology · Czech Republic

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Cegra is a Czech Republic-based technology company specializing in supporting computer graphics and BIM (Building Information Modeling) technologies. The company offers a range of services including software sales, hardware for Archicad, training courses, consulting, and technical support. Positioned as a regional leader in BIM support, Cegra targets architects, BIM professionals, students, and educators. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with good content quality and clear navigation. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including Gravity Forms, Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, and various analytics tools such as Microsoft Clarity and Smartlook. The site is mobile-optimized and performs moderately well. Privacy compliance is well addressed with comprehensive cookie and privacy policies and consent mechanisms. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and implements reCAPTCHA on forms, but lacks visible security headers and a published security policy or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The WHOIS data is consistent with the website's business claims, indicating legitimacy. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with good business credibility and privacy compliance. Strategic improvements in security headers and incident response transparency would enhance the security posture further.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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

8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching cegra.cz

This scan found 24 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
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

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

Cegra operates in the technology sector focusing on BIM and computer graphics support within the Czech Republic. Its business model includes software and hardware sales, training, and consulting services. The company leverages partnerships with Graphisoft and related platforms, enhancing its market position. The website content and structure indicate a medium-sized enterprise with a professional approach to customer engagement and digital presence. The use of multiple analytics and marketing tools suggests an active effort in audience targeting and engagement. No direct revenue streams or financial data are disclosed, but the comprehensive service offering and educational focus imply diversified income sources.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and use of reCAPTCHA to protect forms. Cookie consent management is implemented via Complianz GDPR and Cookie Notice plugins, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options reduces the overall security robustness. No incident response or security policy information is published, which could hinder timely communication in case of security events. The use of multiple third-party analytics and tracking services is managed with consent but increases the attack surface. Regular updates and security hardening are recommended to maintain and improve security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Complete configuration and verification of Google Analytics to ensure accurate and compliant data collection.
  4. Regularly update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities and maintain security.
  5. Review and optimize third-party tracking and marketing tools to balance analytics needs with privacy and security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Cegra
Description
Centrum pro podporu počítačové grafiky ČR
Key services
software sales and support, hardware for Archicad, training and workshops, consulting and BIM implementation, technical support and helpdesk
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Gravity Forms, Yoast SEO, Google Tag Manager, reCAPTCHA, jQuery, Slider Revolution, Smartlook, Microsoft Clarity, Complianz GDPR plugin, Cookie Notice plugin
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA on forms
  • Cookie consent management
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Smartlook, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, Smartlook
Marketing tools
Google Analytics (MonsterInsights plugin), Cookie Notice, Complianz GDPR
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Comprehensive cookie consent and privacy policy in place.
  3. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  4. Uses multiple analytics and tracking tools with consent mechanisms.
  5. No signs of suspicious or malicious content.
  6. Content is focused on BIM technology and related services.
  7. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a modern and widely used technology stack including Gravity Forms for form management, Yoast SEO for search engine optimization, and Slider Revolution for interactive content. It integrates multiple analytics and tracking tools such as Microsoft Clarity, Smartlook, Google Tag Manager, and Facebook Pixel, managed through consent mechanisms. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and uses Google Fonts for typography. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of scripts to improve page load times. There is no explicit hosting provider information detected. The technical implementation is solid but could benefit from enhanced security headers and performance tuning.
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 cegra.cz. 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 cegra.cz.

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.