Skip to main content

Security report for enseccoe.org

NATO ENSEC COE · Energy · Lithuania

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The NATO Energy Security Centre of Excellence (NATO ENSEC COE) is a specialized organization dedicated to supporting NATO, its member nations, and partners in addressing the challenges of a dynamic energy security environment. The website reflects a professional and authoritative presence with a clear mission statement, recent news updates, publications, projects, and events that align with its core focus on energy security within a military and governmental context. The target audience includes NATO officials, energy security professionals, and partner organizations. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins such as Yoast SEO and Everest Forms, ensuring good SEO and user interaction capabilities. It employs Google reCAPTCHA for form security and Google Analytics for traffic analysis. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with a moderate performance profile. Security best practices are observed with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, although some security headers could be improved. From a security posture perspective, the site demonstrates a mature approach with secure forms and privacy compliance, but lacks explicit incident response and vulnerability disclosure information. The absence of WHOIS data limits domain registration insights, but the overall trustworthiness is high given the NATO affiliation and consistent branding. Overall, the website presents a low-risk profile with strong business credibility and technical implementation. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy, and providing direct security contact information to further strengthen trust and compliance.

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

5 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 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"

    • 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. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  3. 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 enseccoe.org

This scan found 22 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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
83
Average
58

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

NATO ENSEC COE occupies a niche position as a NATO-affiliated center focused on energy security, serving governmental and military stakeholders. Its business model is non-commercial, centered on knowledge sharing, training, and research. The organization leverages partnerships within NATO and the European Commission, as evidenced by collaborative events and publications. Growth indicators include recent workshops and expanding course offerings. The partnership ecosystem is robust with NATO and EU entities, enhancing its strategic relevance. The website's professional content and social media presence support its authoritative market position.

Security posture

The website maintains a solid security posture with HTTPS encryption, use of Google reCAPTCHA on all forms, and a cookie consent mechanism compliant with GDPR. However, it lacks visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could mitigate certain attack vectors. No direct incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which is a gap in transparency and readiness. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be improved with formal policies and enhanced headers.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers like Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and vulnerability disclosure page to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Provide explicit incident response contact information, such as a security@ or abuse@ email address.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party plugins and scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance contact information with direct phone numbers or emails for business and security inquiries.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
NATO ENSEC COE
Description
Our mission is to support NATO, Nations and Partners to meet the challenges of a dynamic energy security environment.
Key services
Energy security support, Workshops and conferences, Publications, Courses, Projects
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO, jQuery, Everest Forms, Google reCAPTCHA, Google Analytics, Splide.js slider
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform with a well-maintained tech stack including Yoast SEO for search optimization, Everest Forms for user interaction, and Splide.js for sliders. It uses Google Analytics for traffic monitoring and Google reCAPTCHA for form security. The site is mobile responsive and accessible, with good SEO metadata and structured data (JSON-LD). Performance is moderate, with lazy loading images and video backgrounds. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected. Hosting provider details are not explicit, but the SSL configuration is excellent, indicating a secure hosting environment.
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 enseccoe.org. 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 enseccoe.org.

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.