Skip to main content

Security report for client-zone.eu

Client Zone · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Client Zone is a technology platform providing a secure login portal for its users, leveraging the Keycloak authentication framework and styled with the PatternFly CSS library. The website is designed primarily for client access and authentication, with minimal public-facing content. The technical infrastructure indicates a modern approach to user authentication but lacks visible security headers and privacy policies on the login page. The absence of WHOIS data due to EURid privacy restrictions limits domain trust analysis, but the domain appears legitimate and consistent with a business portal. Security posture is moderate with room for improvement in headers and compliance documentation. Overall, the site is functional but basic in content and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

5 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

    • 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  2. 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

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching client-zone.eu

This scan found 18 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. See sample alerts.

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
72
Security headers
90
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
74

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 business operates in the technology sector, focusing on client authentication services. The business model centers on providing secure access to client resources, likely as part of a larger service ecosystem. The lack of public business information and contact details suggests a focus on authenticated users only. No evident partnerships or subsidiaries are disclosed. The platform targets existing clients or users requiring secure login, indicating a niche but essential service. Growth indicators and market positioning cannot be assessed from the available data.

Security posture

The security posture shows use of HTTPS and a reputable authentication framework (Keycloak), which are positive indicators. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security score. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The site lacks visible privacy and cookie policies, which is a compliance gap. Incident response and security policy information are not publicly available. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but could be enhanced with better header implementation and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies accessible from the login page or main site.
  3. Add multi-factor authentication to strengthen user authentication security.
  4. Provide visible contact information or support channels for users.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and update SSL/TLS configurations to maintain strong encryption.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Client Zone
Description
Client Zone appears to be a platform requiring user authentication, likely providing client-specific services or access to a portal.
Key services
user authentication, client portal access
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, JavaScript, PatternFly CSS framework, Keycloak authentication server
Frameworks
PatternFly
Platforms
Keycloak
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL scheme)
  • Use of secure authentication framework (Keycloak)
  • Password input field with autocomplete off

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a client login portal using Keycloak authentication.
  2. No public WHOIS data available due to EURid privacy restrictions.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on login page.
  4. No contact information or business details visible on login page.
  5. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  6. Website uses PatternFly CSS framework for UI styling.
  7. No security headers visible in provided data; HTTPS implied by URL.
  8. No signs of WAF or content blocking.
  9. Content is minimal and focused on authentication only.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack with Keycloak for authentication and PatternFly for UI styling. The HTML structure is valid and includes meta viewport for mobile responsiveness. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance is likely moderate given the minimal content. Accessibility is basic with standard form labels but could be improved. SEO optimization is minimal due to lack of metadata beyond title and robots noindex directive. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, indicating minimal user tracking.
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 client-zone.eu. 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 client-zone.eu.

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.