Skip to main content

Security report for dfs.de

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH · Transportation · Germany

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung GmbH is the official German air navigation service provider responsible for managing and controlling air traffic within German airspace. The company ensures safe, efficient, and environmentally conscious flight operations, serving millions of passengers annually. Their services include air traffic control, drone flight management, environmental initiatives, training, and research and development. The website targets aviation professionals, drone operators, and the general public interested in air traffic and environmental topics. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript frameworks, SystemJS module loading, and the Ionas CMS platform, hosted on Azure DNS infrastructure. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and provides multilingual support. However, the security posture is weakened by an invalid SSL certificate and lack of proper HTTPS enforcement, which is a critical issue. Privacy compliance is strong, with comprehensive cookie consent mechanisms and GDPR-aligned privacy policies. The site lacks explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent SSL remediation to improve security.

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

7 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

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

Keep watching dfs.de

This scan found 16 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
0
Security headers
85
Email security
50
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
51

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

DFS holds a key position in the German transportation sector as the national air navigation service provider. Its business model is government-related, focusing on air traffic safety and efficiency. The company leverages partnerships with technology and analytics providers such as Piwik PRO and uses advanced CMS and JavaScript frameworks to deliver content. The website reflects a mature digital presence with clear navigation and multilingual support, targeting a broad audience from industry stakeholders to the general public. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a preference for controlled communication channels via contact forms. The company maintains active social media profiles on Twitter and LinkedIn, enhancing its outreach and engagement. The domain registration data aligns well with the company's profile, supporting legitimacy and trust.

Security posture

The website implements several security headers including Content Security Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-XSS-Protection, indicating awareness of web security best practices. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols severely undermine the security posture, exposing users to potential risks. The absence of DNSSEC and CAA records further reduces domain security. No explicit incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are present, which could hinder timely handling of security issues. The cookie consent mechanism and privacy policy demonstrate compliance with GDPR, but the critical SSL issues must be addressed to ensure secure data transmission and user trust.

Recommendations

  1. Urgently obtain and deploy a valid SSL certificate to enable HTTPS and secure user connections.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated versions to enhance encryption strength.
  3. Implement DNSSEC and CAA records to improve domain security and prevent certificate misuse.
  4. Establish and publish an incident response policy and vulnerability disclosure page to improve security transparency.
  5. Maintain and regularly update security headers and conduct security audits to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses Apache as the web server and is built on the Ionas4 CMS platform. It employs SystemJS for module loading and includes legacy jQuery usage. The site is hosted on Azure DNS infrastructure, indicating a reliable hosting environment. Performance data is unavailable, but the site appears well-optimized for mobile and accessibility. The use of Piwik PRO analytics shows a preference for privacy-conscious tracking solutions. The invalid SSL configuration is the primary technical risk, potentially affecting user trust and SEO rankings. The site uses a comprehensive Content Security Policy and other security headers, but these are undermined by the lack of HTTPS. The website's structured data and Open Graph tags are well-implemented, supporting SEO and social media integration.
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 dfs.de. 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 dfs.de.

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.