Skip to main content

Security report for ewo.ch

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website ewo.ch currently presents a security challenge page that blocks direct access to its content, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism. The page uses outdated CMS meta tags referencing Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, both of which are no longer supported and have known vulnerabilities. The site lacks visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, and no contact or business information is provided on the accessible page. The only external link is to bitninja.io, a security service provider, suggesting some level of security monitoring. Overall, the site appears to be in a minimal or placeholder state, with limited content and poor user experience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

8 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

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

Keep watching ewo.ch

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
52
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
62

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

Due to the content being blocked by a security challenge, no concrete business information or market positioning can be determined. The presence of outdated CMS versions suggests the site may not be actively maintained or is legacy. No contact details, company name, or sector information is available, limiting insights into business operations or partnerships. The external link to bitninja.io indicates a reliance on third-party security services but does not clarify business relationships or ecosystem.

Security posture

The security posture is mixed. On one hand, the presence of a security challenge page and integration with BitNinja indicates some proactive security measures. On the other hand, the use of outdated CMS versions with known vulnerabilities, absence of security headers, and lack of visible HTTPS enforcement are significant concerns. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. The site’s security score is low due to these factors, and the blocking mechanism prevents full security assessment.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade the CMS to a current, supported version to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a strong SSL/TLS configuration.
  3. Add and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  5. Provide visible and verified contact information to enhance business credibility and support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page shows a security check with a countdown and browser integrity check script, indicating a WAF or security challenge blocking direct access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
Joomla!
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Frameworks
Joomla! 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
slow
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Browser integrity check script
  • Redirect with countdown

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by a security challenge page.
  2. Uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) indicated in meta tags.
  3. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies.
  4. No contact information or business details found on the page.
  5. External link to bitninja.io indicates use of third-party security service.
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  7. No social media or email contacts found.
  8. Page is minimal and likely a gatekeeper page before redirecting to actual content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy CMS platforms (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) as indicated by meta tags, which are outdated and pose security risks. The page includes JavaScript for a browser integrity check and a timed redirect, typical of WAF challenge pages. No modern analytics, advertising, or tracking technologies are detected. The site’s performance is likely slow due to the blocking mechanism and outdated technology. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic at best, with minimal content and poor SEO practices. The hosting provider and SSL configuration details are not discernible from the provided data.
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 ewo.ch. 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 ewo.ch.

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.