Skip to main content

Security report for federation-wallonie-bruxelles.be

Government · Belgium

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

64/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website federation-wallonie-bruxelles.be appears to be a government-related domain registered in Belgium since 2009 under the BELNET registrar, which is consistent with academic and governmental entities. However, the website content is currently inaccessible due to a security or WAF block, returning a minimal 'Request Rejected' page. This prevents any meaningful analysis of the site's content, policies, or technical infrastructure. The lack of accessible content also means no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are detectable, and no contact or business information is available. The technical infrastructure cannot be assessed beyond the registrar information, and no security headers or SSL configuration details are available from the provided data. Overall, the site appears legitimate based on WHOIS data but is currently blocked from analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

8 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

    • 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

  2. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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 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';…

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

Keep watching federation-wallonie-bruxelles.be

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. See sample alerts.

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
65
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
64

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 domain is likely operated by a government entity in Belgium, serving the Federation Wallonie-Bruxelles region. The domain age and registrar align with a stable, established organization. Due to the blocked content, no further insights into market positioning, business model, or services can be derived. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable from the data. The business model is presumably public sector service provision, but this cannot be confirmed from the site content.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully evaluated due to the blocked content. The presence of a WAF or security mechanism is confirmed by the 'Request Rejected' page, which indicates some level of security control. However, no security headers, SSL details, or vulnerability disclosures are available. The absence of accessible policies and contact information for incident response suggests gaps in transparency and compliance readiness. The site should improve accessibility for legitimate users and provide clear security and privacy documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Work with hosting and security providers to allow legitimate access for security and compliance analysis.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to demonstrate GDPR compliance.
  3. Implement and expose security headers and ensure robust SSL/TLS configuration.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security incident response channels.
  5. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website returns a 'Request Rejected' page with minimal HTML content indicating a WAF or security mechanism blocking access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Analytics and tracking

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible due to a security or WAF block.
  2. No metadata, forms, external links, or contact information found in the HTML content.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  4. No scripts, libraries, or technologies detected due to minimal content.
  5. WHOIS data indicates a legitimate government domain registered in 2009 with BELNET.
  6. Unable to perform full technical, security, or compliance analysis due to blocked content.
Technical notes

Notes

Due to the minimal HTML content and WAF block, no technical stack, CMS, or frameworks could be detected. The domain is hosted under BELNET, a reputable Belgian network provider. Performance, mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO cannot be assessed. The site currently lacks visible metadata, scripts, or external links, indicating either a placeholder or blocked state. Modernization and technical improvements should focus on accessibility and transparency.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 60/100Medium33 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with federation-wallonie-bruxelles.be. 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 federation-wallonie-bruxelles.be.

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.