Skip to main content

Security report for ers-education.org

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The ERS Respiratory Channel website appears to be a specialized platform focused on respiratory health content, likely targeting healthcare professionals or patients interested in respiratory topics. The site uses a variety of third-party analytics and tracking tools, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. However, the lack of visible privacy policies, contact information, and WHOIS registrant data limits the overall trust and compliance posture. The technical infrastructure relies on older versions of jQuery and jQuery UI, along with standard web technologies and popular icon fonts. Security headers and SSL configuration details are not evident from the provided data, suggesting room for improvement in security hardening. Overall, the site is functional but basic in design and content presentation, with limited transparency on privacy and business details.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
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

4 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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching ers-education.org

This scan found 25 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
72
Security headers
30
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
68

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 website serves a niche healthcare sector focused on respiratory topics, likely affiliated with the European Respiratory Society (ERS) given the domain and branding. The business model appears to be content delivery, possibly educational or informational streaming. No direct revenue streams or partner domains were identified. The absence of contact details and corporate information suggests the site may be a sub-service or channel rather than a standalone commercial entity. The use of multiple tracking and analytics services indicates an interest in user engagement metrics. Market positioning is unclear due to limited content and metadata. Growth potential may depend on integration with parent or related ERS services.

Security posture

The security posture is moderate but incomplete. The site uses HTTPS as implied by canonical URLs but lacks visible security headers in the provided data. The presence of multiple third-party scripts increases the attack surface and requires vigilant library management. No forms or input fields were detected, reducing immediate risk of injection attacks. The absence of privacy and security policies, as well as WHOIS transparency, are compliance gaps. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not evident. Recommendations include implementing security headers, updating libraries, and publishing clear privacy and security policies to enhance trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  2. Add clear contact information including company emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility.
  3. Configure and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Regularly update third-party libraries and scripts to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Establish and publicize incident response and vulnerability disclosure procedures.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
basic
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.12.2, jQuery UI 1.10.4, SWFObject, Font Awesome 6.7.2, FullCalendar Scheduler 6.1.17, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, Facebook SDK, Facebook Pixel
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
40/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, Facebook Pixel
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Facebook Pixel, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar
Marketing tools
Facebook SDK
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a legacy jQuery version (1.12.2) and jQuery UI 1.10.4, which are outdated and may have security vulnerabilities. It employs FullCalendar Scheduler for scheduling features and Font Awesome 6.7.2 for icons. Analytics and tracking are implemented via Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, and Facebook Pixel, indicating extensive user behavior tracking. The site loads resources from multiple CDNs, which can improve performance but require trust in external providers. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no advanced frameworks or CMS detected. Performance is moderate, but modernization of the tech stack and improved SEO metadata would enhance the site.
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 ers-education.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 ers-education.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.