Skip to main content

Security report for frantzen.nl

FRANTZEN et al architecten · Other · N/a

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

FRANTZEN et al architecten appears to be an architectural firm with a longstanding domain registered since 1997. The website content is minimal and built using outdated HTML frameset technology, indicating a legacy or poorly maintained site. There is no visible metadata, contact information, or policies related to privacy, cookies, or terms of service. Technically, the site lacks modern web standards, mobile optimization, and security best practices such as HTTPS and security headers. The WHOIS data confirms the domain is active and consistent with a legitimate business, but the absence of DNSSEC and privacy protection is noted. Overall, the website presents a low digital maturity and security posture, with significant room for modernization and compliance improvements.

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

10 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 frantzen.nl

This scan found 29 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
25
Average
40

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 company operates in the architectural services sector, targeting a general audience likely seeking architectural design services. The business model is service-oriented, but the website does not provide detailed information about market positioning, partnerships, or growth indicators. The lack of contact details and business information on the site limits the ability to assess credibility and operational scale. The domain age supports the existence of an established business, but the digital presence is weak and may impact competitive positioning.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a low security maturity level. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, which exposes users to potential risks. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating non-compliance with GDPR and related regulations. The use of deprecated HTML framesets may introduce security and usability issues. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are absent. Overall, the security posture is poor, with critical improvements needed to protect user data and enhance trust.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure communications.
  2. Replace deprecated frameset HTML with modern HTML5 and responsive design techniques.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  4. Introduce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Provide clear contact information and consider adding a security incident response contact.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
FRANTZEN et al architecten
Description
Architectural firm presumably providing architectural services.
Key services
architectural design
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
HTML Frameset
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 uses outdated HTML frameset technology.
  2. No metadata description or keywords provided.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No contact information or forms present in the HTML content.
  5. No external links or social media links detected.
  6. No scripts or modern technologies detected.
  7. Website content is minimal and likely incomplete or legacy.
  8. No security headers or HTTPS information available.
  9. WHOIS data shows domain is old and active but DNSSEC is not enabled.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using outdated HTML frameset technology, which is no longer recommended and negatively impacts accessibility and SEO. There is no evidence of modern CMS, frameworks, or hosting provider information. The site lacks meta descriptions and keywords, which harms SEO. Performance is likely slow due to legacy code and lack of optimization. Mobile optimization and accessibility are poor, limiting usability on modern devices. No analytics or tracking technologies are detected, indicating minimal digital marketing efforts. Overall, the technical infrastructure is outdated and requires modernization to meet current web standards and business needs.
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 frantzen.nl. 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 frantzen.nl.

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.