Skip to main content

Security report for e-r-c.at

Zertifizierungsstelle ERC · Transportation · Austria

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Network security and 1 other check.

Security score

37/100

Risk levelHigh

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

ERC is a European certification body specializing in the railway sector, offering comprehensive vehicle approval services primarily in the German-speaking region of Europe. Their key services include TSI conformity assessment as a Notified Body, ECM certification, and DeBo and AsBo evaluations. The website is professionally designed using Joomla CMS with a Bootstrap framework, providing clear navigation and relevant content in German with English alternatives. Technically, the site uses a valid SSL certificate but lacks modern TLS protocol support and advanced security headers, which slightly reduces its security posture. Privacy compliance is basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism or GDPR explicit indicators. Contact information is clearly provided, enhancing business credibility. Overall, the site is functional and trustworthy but would benefit from security and privacy improvements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

10 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

  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.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: SMB

      Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB 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
    • 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

  3. 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 Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

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

Keep watching e-r-c.at

This scan found 23 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
20
Email security
50
DNS health
50
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
18
Average
37

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

ERC positions itself as a niche certification authority in the European railway industry, targeting companies requiring vehicle and maintenance certifications. Their business model revolves around regulatory compliance services, leveraging recognized certifications like TSI and ECM. The company appears small but focused, with a clear market niche in German-speaking Europe. The website reflects a professional but modest digital presence, with no evident analytics or marketing tracking, indicating a low reliance on digital marketing. Partnerships include a web production company, but no other business partners or subsidiaries are evident. The domain is newly registered in 2025, which may indicate a relatively new or rebranded entity.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate but lacks support for modern TLS versions (TLS 1.2 or 1.3), which is a significant security shortfall. No advanced security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options are implemented, and OCSP stapling is disabled. The site sets HttpOnly cookies but does not use session resumption or security-focused headers. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies. Privacy compliance is minimal, with no cookie consent or GDPR explicit mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is basic and could be improved to meet modern standards and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3 protocols to improve SSL security.
  2. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload flags.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  4. Deploy a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance privacy transparency.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve security transparency.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Joomla CMS with the K2 content component and uses Bootstrap for responsive design. It loads multiple JavaScript libraries including jQuery and MooTools, and uses external CDNs for Font Awesome and Magnific Popup. The site has no detected analytics or tracking scripts, indicating minimal user tracking. Performance data is missing but inferred as slow due to zero resource counts and chunked transfer encoding. Mobile optimization is good due to Bootstrap usage. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The site lacks modern TLS protocols and advanced security headers, which are technical risks. The domain DNS records are minimal with no DNSSEC or CAA records, which could be improved for DNS security.
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 e-r-c.at. 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 e-r-c.at.

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.