Skip to main content

Security report for dechristelijkezorgverzekeraar.nl

De christelijke zorgverzekeraar · Healthcare · Netherlands

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

De christelijke zorgverzekeraar is a Dutch health insurance provider focused on integrating Christian values with healthcare services. It operates as part of the larger Zilveren Kruis group, offering basic and supplementary insurance products tailored to its target audience. The website is professionally designed, well-structured, and provides comprehensive information about insurance options, Christian care, and customer services. Technically, the site uses modern technologies including Sitecore CMS, Vue.js, and Coveo search integration, ensuring a good user experience and SEO optimization. However, the security posture is weakened by the absence of a valid SSL/TLS certificate and disabled TLS protocols, which is a critical issue that must be addressed to protect user data and maintain trust. Privacy policies and cookie statements are present and GDPR compliance is indicated, though no explicit consent mechanism was detected. Overall, the site is credible and trustworthy but requires urgent security improvements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube

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

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

Keep watching dechristelijkezorgverzekeraar.nl

This scan found 12 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
85
Email security
50
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
63

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 positions itself as a niche health insurer catering to the Christian community in the Netherlands, leveraging its affiliation with Zilveren Kruis and Achmea to enhance market credibility. Its business model revolves around providing tailored insurance products with a focus on faith-based care and support programs. The website content and navigation reflect a customer-centric approach with clear calls to action such as premium calculation and claims submission. The presence of multiple partner domains and extensive marketing and analytics tools indicates a mature digital marketing strategy. The absence of public email contacts suggests a preference for phone and online portal communications. The company maintains a positive reputation as evidenced by customer satisfaction ratings and social media engagement.

Security posture

While the website implements several security best practices including a strict Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection headers, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols represent significant vulnerabilities. This exposes users to risks such as data interception and undermines trust in the platform. The absence of HSTS enforcement and OCSP stapling further weakens the security posture. No evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies was found, which could impact the organization's readiness to handle security incidents. The use of HttpOnly and Secure cookies with SameSite attributes is a positive aspect. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues.

Recommendations

  1. Install and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS.
  2. Enable TLS 1.2 or higher protocols and disable deprecated versions.
  3. Activate HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload options to enforce HTTPS.
  4. Implement OCSP stapling to improve certificate validation performance and security.
  5. Establish and publish an incident response and vulnerability disclosure policy.
  6. Review and tighten Content Security Policy to reduce use of unsafe-eval and unsafe-inline.
  7. Consider adding explicit cookie consent mechanisms to enhance privacy compliance.
  8. Publish contact emails for security and data protection officers to improve transparency.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Sitecore CMS with integration of Vue.js and jQuery for frontend interactivity. Coveo search is used for enhanced search capabilities. The site leverages multiple CDNs including Cloudfront and uses Azure monitoring services. Performance metrics were not available, but the site appears optimized for mobile devices with responsive images and layouts. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Accessibility is basic but present. The technical stack is modern and suitable for a medium-sized enterprise in healthcare, though the lack of SSL/TLS is a critical technical debt that must be addressed to avoid operational and reputational risks.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 71/100 +8Medium19 findingsView report
  2. 63/100Medium19 findingsView report
  3. 63/100Medium19 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with dechristelijkezorgverzekeraar.nl. 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 dechristelijkezorgverzekeraar.nl.

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.