Skip to main content

Security report for fwp.at

Fellner Wratzfeld & Partner Rechtsanwälte GmbH · Other · Austria

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

30/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Fellner Wratzfeld & Partner Rechtsanwälte GmbH is a leading Austrian law firm with over 130 highly qualified professionals. The firm offers a broad range of legal services including corporate law, banking and finance, compliance, ESG, real estate, and dispute resolution. It holds a strong market position supported by multiple industry awards and recognitions such as EMEA Top Tier Firm 2025 and IFLR1000 2024. The website is professionally designed, content-rich, and targets businesses and individuals seeking legal expertise in Austria and related sectors. Technically, the site runs on an Apache Ubuntu server with Bootstrap and Google Tag Manager integration, but suffers from slow performance and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts its security posture. Privacy compliance is well addressed with GDPR-compliant policies and cookie consent mechanisms. The security posture is basic, with no HTTPS enabled and missing key security headers, exposing the site to potential risks. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional but requires urgent improvements in SSL/TLS configuration and security best practices to enhance user trust and data protection.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  2. 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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 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"

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

Keep watching fwp.at

This scan found 21 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
0
Average
30

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 firm operates in the legal services industry, focusing on sectors such as banking, energy, infrastructure, technology, healthcare, media, automotive, retail, real estate, startups, and logistics. Its business model revolves around providing specialized legal advisory and representation services to a diverse client base. The firm demonstrates strong market positioning through certifications, awards, and positive testimonials from reputable legal directories. The website supports business growth by showcasing detailed team profiles, expertise areas, and active social media engagement. The presence of a career section and newsletter indicates ongoing recruitment and client engagement strategies. The firm appears stable and well-established, with consistent domain registration data and no suspicious patterns detected.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is low due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS enforcement. Key security headers such as HSTS are missing, and email security is weakened by the absence of DMARC records. While no critical vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or POODLE are detected, the lack of certificate transparency and OCSP stapling reduces trustworthiness. The site uses secure protocols but does not implement session resumption or advanced TLS features. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies are not found, indicating potential gaps in security governance. The firm should prioritize SSL certificate installation, enable security headers, and implement email authentication to improve its security posture and compliance with GDPR and other regulations.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and protect user data.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload options.
  3. Implement DMARC, SPF, and DKIM records to secure email communications and prevent spoofing.
  4. Enable OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and security.
  5. Develop and publish a security policy and incident response plan to enhance security governance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Fellner Wratzfeld & Partner Rechtsanwälte GmbH
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on an Apache 2.4.29 server running Ubuntu, using Bootstrap for responsive design and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile optimized with good accessibility and SEO practices. However, performance is slow, possibly due to caching or server configuration issues. The absence of a CMS or use of a custom CMS suggests potential technical debt or limited scalability. The site uses icon fonts (icomoon) and JavaScript for UI components and search functionality. DNS records are standard with no DNSSEC or CAA records, and the domain is registered with consistent WHOIS data. Technical risks include lack of SSL, missing security headers, and no DNS security extensions, which could impact business operations if exploited.
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 fwp.at. 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 fwp.at.

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.