Skip to main content

Security report for foodora.hu

Other · Hungary

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.foodora.hu is currently inaccessible due to a PerimeterX Web Application Firewall (WAF) security challenge page that requires CAPTCHA verification to proceed. This prevents access to any substantive content, including business descriptions, contact information, or policies. The site employs advanced bot mitigation technologies such as Google reCAPTCHA and PerimeterX, indicating a focus on security and abuse prevention. However, the lack of accessible content limits the ability to assess the company's market position, services, or compliance posture. The security posture is partially observable through the presence of these protections but cannot be fully evaluated without access to the underlying site content. Overall, the site is currently in a blocked state, resulting in a low AI score and incomplete analysis.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching foodora.hu

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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
63

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 WAF blocking, no direct business intelligence data such as company name, market positioning, or business model could be extracted. The domain is associated with Hungary, and the URL suggests a food delivery or related service, but no explicit business details are available. No partner or subsidiary domains were identified. The lack of visible contact or policy information reduces business credibility and transparency.

Security posture

The security posture shows the use of modern bot mitigation tools including PerimeterX and Google reCAPTCHA, which are effective against automated attacks and abuse. However, the inability to access the site content prevents verification of security headers, SSL configuration, or presence of security policies. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected, but this is due to lack of access rather than confirmed absence. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not visible.

Recommendations

  1. Allow legitimate access to website content to enable full security and compliance assessment.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies accessible without WAF challenge.
  3. Provide visible contact information including security incident contacts.
  4. Implement and expose security headers and SSL best practices.
  5. Consider publishing a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy to improve transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

PerimeterX detected. Website content is blocked by a PerimeterX security challenge page requiring CAPTCHA verification. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
Google reCAPTCHA, PerimeterX, Roboto font, JavaScript
Mobile
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of Google reCAPTCHA for bot protection
  • Use of PerimeterX bot mitigation

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 PerimeterX WAF challenge.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details are exposed on the landing page.
  4. Use of Google reCAPTCHA and PerimeterX indicates bot mitigation measures.
  5. No forms or user input fields are accessible for analysis.
  6. No social media or external business-related links found in the HTML content.
  7. Website title indicates access denial, no business description available.
  8. No metadata such as Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data present.
  9. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The site uses Google reCAPTCHA and PerimeterX for bot mitigation, indicating a modern security approach. The HTML includes references to Google Fonts and asynchronous JavaScript loading. However, no CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. The site is mobile responsive to some extent but lacks accessible content for performance or SEO evaluation. The WAF challenge significantly limits technical analysis and suggests a high-security posture that may impact user experience and third-party assessments.
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 foodora.hu. 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 foodora.hu.

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.