Skip to main content

Security report for ceur-ws.org

CEUR Workshop Proceedings · Education · Germany

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

50/100

Risk levelMedium

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

CEUR-WS.org is a well-established academic open-access publishing platform specializing in computer science and information systems workshop proceedings. Operated by volunteers under the auspices of RWTH Aachen University, it provides free online access to scientific papers and maintains a recognized ISSN publication series. The website hosts a large volume of proceedings with detailed editorial and submission information, targeting researchers and academic workshop organizers. Technically, the site uses basic HTML and CSS, hosted by Sun SITE Central Europe, with moderate performance and basic mobile optimization. Security posture is moderate with domain transfer protections but lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. Privacy compliance is basic, relying on legal disclaimers without explicit GDPR adherence or cookie policies. Overall, the domain registration is consistent and legitimate, reflecting a stable and trustworthy academic service.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
70/ 100 · Medium
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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

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

Keep watching ceur-ws.org

This scan found 27 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
40
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
70
Average
50

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 platform occupies a niche in academic publishing with a diamond open-access model, offering free services to the research community without commercial advertising or tracking. Its long domain age and institutional hosting provide competitive advantages in trust and continuity. The business model relies on volunteer efforts and institutional support rather than revenue streams. The target audience includes academic researchers, workshop organizers, and institutions in computer science and related fields. The partnership ecosystem includes RWTH Aachen University and Sun SITE Central Europe. Growth indicators include continuous publication of numerous workshop proceedings volumes and adoption of new policies such as generative AI usage guidelines. Strategic observations highlight the importance of enhancing privacy compliance and security posture to maintain trust and meet evolving regulatory requirements.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with domain transfer protections and stable hosting. However, it lacks implementation of DNSSEC, security headers (such as CSP, HSTS), and explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies. No security.txt or dedicated security contact channels are found. The absence of cookie consent mechanisms and detailed privacy compliance measures indicates gaps in GDPR adherence. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerabilities are evident from the content. The security culture appears informal, consistent with a volunteer-run academic service. Business impact of current gaps is moderate, primarily affecting regulatory compliance and user trust. Enhancing security policies and technical controls would improve resilience and compliance posture.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC and implement security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to strengthen domain and web security.
  2. Develop and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  3. Establish a formal vulnerability disclosure policy and incident response contacts to enhance security readiness.
  4. Implement HTTPS enforcement and verify SSL/TLS configuration for secure communications.
  5. Improve mobile responsiveness and accessibility features to enhance user experience and inclusivity.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
CEUR Workshop Proceedings
Description
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org) is a free, diamond open-access publication service providing free online scientific papers, primarily in computer science and information systems, operated by volunteers under RWTH Aachen University.
Key services
Free online publication of scientific workshop proceedings, Hosting and archiving of workshop papers, Providing submission instructions and templates
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML, CSS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited to prevent unauthorized transfers

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is an academic open-access publication platform operated by volunteers under RWTH Aachen University.
  2. No commercial advertising or tracking detected.
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on main site, but legal disclaimers and copyright notices are present.
  4. WHOIS data shows domain is well maintained and secured against unauthorized transfer.
  5. Website content is extensive, with many volumes of workshop proceedings listed.
  6. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  7. No social media links explicitly found in the snippet except a link to a WordPress blog.
  8. No security headers or advanced security policies detected in the HTML content.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file found.
  10. No contact emails explicitly visible in the snippet; contact page referenced.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with basic HTML and CSS without modern frameworks or CMS, hosted by an academic institution. Performance is moderate with no advanced optimization detected. SEO is basic with meta description and keywords but lacks structured data like JSON-LD or Open Graph tags. No analytics or tracking scripts are present, indicating minimal user tracking. The site is accessible without WAF or security challenges. Technical debt includes lack of modern security headers and absence of cookie consent mechanisms. Modernization opportunities include adopting responsive design frameworks, enhancing SEO with structured data, and integrating security best practices to reduce risks impacting business operations.
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 ceur-ws.org. 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 ceur-ws.org.

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.