Skip to main content

Security report for cocof.be

Commission communautaire française · Government · Belgium

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

49/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Commission communautaire française (COCOF) website serves as the official public service portal for the French-speaking community in the Brussels-Capital Region. It provides regulatory and approval services related to various daily life matters affecting approximately 900,000 francophone residents. The site is positioned as a governmental entity with a clear target audience of francophone Brussels inhabitants. The business model is public service-oriented, focusing on community regulation and support. The website demonstrates consistent branding and good content quality, with professional design and clear navigation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 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 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

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Google APIs

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching cocof.be

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
85
Security headers
25
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
65
Average
52
After the cap
49

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 · found on this site
  • 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

COCOF holds a significant market position as the official community commission for francophones in Brussels, operating within the government sector. Its competitive advantage lies in its official status and regulatory authority. The business model is non-commercial, focusing on public administration and community services. The target customers are residents and stakeholders within the francophone community of Brussels. The website's partnership ecosystem includes social media presence on Facebook, but no other partner or subsidiary domains were identified. Growth indicators and revenue streams are not applicable given the governmental nature of the entity.

Security posture

The website benefits from HTTPS encryption and uses standard WordPress security practices. However, it lacks visible security headers and does not provide explicit security policies or incident response contacts. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The absence of a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy indicates room for improvement in transparency and security maturity. Overall, the security posture is moderate, suitable for a governmental informational site but could be enhanced with additional security best practices and policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear GDPR compliance statements.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection.
  3. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Introduce a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting and responsible disclosure.
  5. Regularly audit and update plugins and themes to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Commission communautaire française
Description
La Cocof agrée et réglemente une série de matières liées à votre quotidien ainsi qu'à celui de quelque 900.000 habitants francophones de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.
Key services
Regulation and approval of various daily life matters for francophones in Brussels
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, Yoast SEO, jQuery, FontAwesome, Bootstrap, Download Manager plugin, WP User Avatar plugin, Monarch plugin
Frameworks
Divi
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of admin-ajax.php for AJAX calls

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a French-language governmental site serving francophone residents in Brussels.
  2. Uses WordPress with Divi theme and common plugins.
  3. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the homepage HTML.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet.
  5. Social media presence confirmed via Facebook link.
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found.
  7. No incident response or security contact information found.
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected beyond standard fonts and icons.
  9. Good SEO metadata and structured data usage.
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme, supplemented by plugins such as Yoast SEO, Download Manager, and Monarch. It leverages common web technologies including jQuery, Bootstrap, and FontAwesome. The site demonstrates good SEO practices with proper meta tags and structured data (JSON-LD). Performance is moderate, with mobile optimization rated as good. Accessibility features are basic but present. There is no indication of hosting provider from the HTML content. The technical stack is modern and widely supported, though opportunities exist to improve security headers and privacy compliance.
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 cocof.be. 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 cocof.be.

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.