Skip to main content

Security report for co-met.info

co.met GmbH · Energy · Germany

Medium risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

co.met GmbH is a German municipal IT company specializing in data collection, processing, and provision services primarily for the energy and metering sector. With over 20 years of experience and a customer base exceeding 650 clients nationwide, the company offers a range of services including reading management, workforce management, regulatory services, and IoT solutions. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence targeting municipal energy providers and related organizations in Germany. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using popular plugins and a commercial theme, but suffers from slow load times and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts security and user trust. Security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS, lack of security headers, and no advanced security configurations. Privacy compliance is partial with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is functional and informative but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

2 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.

    • 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

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

Keep watching co-met.info

This scan found 14 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
50
Security headers
70
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
66

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 company holds a solid position in the German energy IT services market, leveraging long-term experience and a broad client base. Its business model focuses on SaaS and service offerings tailored to municipal energy providers, emphasizing data accuracy and regulatory compliance. Partnerships with entities like mysMartShop and Saarbrücker Stadtwerke indicate a collaborative ecosystem. The website content and structure support lead generation and customer engagement but lack direct contact details, relying on forms and linked contact pages. Growth potential exists through enhanced digital presence and improved security and privacy practices.

Security posture

The current security maturity is low, primarily due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS enforcement, which is a critical vulnerability. The lack of security headers and modern TLS protocols further weakens the security posture. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are publicly available, indicating limited transparency and preparedness. GDPR compliance is partial, with a privacy policy but no cookie consent mechanism. The site should prioritize SSL deployment, security header implementation, and privacy enhancements to mitigate risks and comply with regulations.

Recommendations

  1. Deploy and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance user privacy.
  4. Publish clear incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Optimize website performance to reduce load times and improve user experience.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a commercial theme and several common plugins including WPBakery, Contact Form 7, and Slider Pro. It uses jQuery and MediaElement.js for frontend functionality. Hosting and DNS records point to tec-saar.de as the provider. Performance is suboptimal with a load time exceeding 8 seconds and a large page size (~310 KB). Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility features are basic. SEO is adequately addressed with meta tags and structured data in JSON-LD format. The absence of HTTPS and security headers represents a significant technical risk. Modernization opportunities include SSL implementation, performance optimization, and enhanced security configurations.
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 co-met.info. 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 co-met.info.

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.