Skip to main content

Security report for diesis.coop

Diesis Network · Energy · Belgium

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and Network security.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Diesis Network is an established organization operating in the energy sector, likely focusing on cooperative energy solutions given the .coop domain and company name. The website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and incorporates SEO optimization via Yoast SEO. The technical infrastructure includes Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager for user tracking. Hosting is provided by Infomaniak, a reputable European hosting provider. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but lacks advanced security headers and vulnerability disclosures. Privacy compliance is weak due to the absence of privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the website presents a professional appearance but would benefit from enhanced security and compliance features.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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';…

  2. Network security

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

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • 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

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

Keep watching diesis.coop

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
70
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
60

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 appears to be a small-sized energy cooperative network based in Belgium, with a domain age consistent with its founding year of 2003. The business model likely revolves around facilitating collaboration and networking within the energy sector. The website targets energy professionals and cooperatives, positioning itself as a niche player. There is no evidence of parent or subsidiary companies. The lack of explicit contact information and policies suggests a need for improved transparency to enhance business credibility.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, which is mandatory for secure communications. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could mitigate common web attacks. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, and no incident response contacts are provided. The use of Google Analytics and Tag Manager indicates moderate user tracking without clear privacy compliance. Overall, the security maturity is moderate but requires improvements to meet best practices and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Publish a security.txt file and provide clear incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  4. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to strengthen DNS security.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and plugins to minimize vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Diesis Network
Description
Diesis Network is an organization related to the energy sector, likely focusing on cooperative or networked energy solutions given the domain and name context.
Key services
energy cooperative networking, energy sector collaboration
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Open Sans font, Raleway font, Quicksand font, Futura Std font
Frameworks
Yoast SEO, Divi Theme
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress with Divi theme and Yoast SEO plugin
  2. No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided content
  4. Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager are used for tracking
  5. Domain is well established and registered to the organization matching the website
  6. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure found
  7. No incident response or security contact information found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature and widely used CMS platform, WordPress, with the Divi theme providing a modern and responsive design. SEO is enhanced by the Yoast SEO plugin, and fonts are loaded from Google Fonts for consistent typography. Hosting is managed by Infomaniak, a reliable provider. Performance is moderate with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. Accessibility is basic but could be improved with additional ARIA attributes and semantic HTML. The technical stack is solid but could benefit from modern security enhancements and performance optimizations.
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 diesis.coop. 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 diesis.coop.

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.