Skip to main content

Security report for gemeinsamgegenfakebewertungen.de

Other · N/a

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Network security and 2 other checks.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website gemeinsamgegenfakebewertungen.de currently serves a 403 Forbidden error page, indicating that access to the content is blocked or restricted. No business-related content, metadata, or structured data is accessible, preventing a full assessment of the company's offerings or market position. The lack of contact information, privacy policies, or terms of service further limits the ability to evaluate compliance or customer engagement. Technically, the site does not expose any scripts, analytics, or external links, and no security headers or SSL details are discernible from the provided content. The WHOIS data is minimal but shows the domain uses reputable nameservers from Noris, suggesting some legitimacy, though the domain status 'connect' is unusual and may indicate a transitional state. Overall, the site appears to be either misconfigured or intentionally restricted, resulting in a low digital maturity and security posture score.

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

11 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

  2. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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"

    • 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 gemeinsamgegenfakebewertungen.de

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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
10
Average
45

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 · found on this site
  • 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 absence of accessible content and business information, no meaningful business intelligence can be derived. The domain's name suggests a focus on combating fake reviews, but no supporting data or company details are available. The lack of contact channels, policies, or certifications indicates the site is not currently positioned for active customer engagement or compliance transparency. No partnerships or related domains are identified.

Security posture

The security posture cannot be fully assessed due to the blocked content. The 403 Forbidden status indicates some access control is in place, but no security headers or SSL configuration details are available. The absence of privacy and cookie policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosures points to gaps in compliance and security best practices. The domain uses reputable nameservers, which is a positive indicator, but overall security maturity is low given the lack of visible security measures and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Resolve the 403 Forbidden access issue to allow content visibility and user access.
  2. Implement and publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR compliance.
  3. Add clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident reporting.
  4. Configure security headers and ensure HTTPS with valid SSL certificates is enforced.
  5. Provide business information and certifications to improve trust and credibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website returns a 403 Forbidden error page indicating access is blocked or forbidden. No WAF vendor-specific challenge detected but content is inaccessible. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

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 inaccessible due to 403 Forbidden error.
  2. No metadata, structured data, or SEO tags found.
  3. No forms, contact information, or business details present.
  4. No external links or social media links detected.
  5. No scripts or analytics libraries detected.
  6. WHOIS data is minimal but uses reputable nameservers.
  7. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  8. No security headers or SSL information available from content.
  9. Website appears to be either restricted or misconfigured.
  10. Analysis incomplete due to blocked content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves a static 403 Forbidden error page with minimal HTML and no dynamic content or scripts. No CMS or frameworks are detectable. The site uses Google Fonts for typography but no other external resources. The performance is likely moderate given the minimal content, but the lack of mobile optimization and accessibility features reduces usability. SEO is poor due to missing meta tags and no indexation directives. The domain uses Noris nameservers, indicating hosting with a known provider, but no further hosting details are available. The technical setup appears minimal and possibly incomplete or restricted.
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. 49/100High32 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with gemeinsamgegenfakebewertungen.de. 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 gemeinsamgegenfakebewertungen.de.

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.