Skip to main content

Security report for gfa-lueneburg.de

GfA Lüneburg – gkAöR (gemeinsame kommunale Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts) · Energy · Germany

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

57/100

Risk levelMedium

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

GfA Lüneburg is a public municipal waste management entity operating in the Landkreis and Hansestadt Lüneburg, Germany. It provides comprehensive waste collection, transport, composting, and problem waste disposal services with a workforce of approximately 220 employees. The organization is positioned as a certified waste management specialist and serves both private and commercial customers. The website reflects a regional public service provider with a clear focus on environmental sustainability and community service. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern plugins such as Yoast SEO and Contact Form 7, including Google reCAPTCHA v3 for form security. The site is mobile optimized and SEO friendly but lacks some advanced security headers and a cookie consent mechanism, which are recommended for GDPR compliance. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, but improvements in security headers and incident response disclosures are advised. Overall, the domain and website content are consistent with a legitimate public entity, though WHOIS data is minimal. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, adding cookie consent, and publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 100 · High
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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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 gfa-lueneburg.de

This scan found 28 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
42
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
57

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 energy and transportation sectors, specifically focusing on waste management and environmental services. Its business model is that of a public municipal service provider, funded and operated as a joint municipal authority. The target audience includes private households, commercial clients, and local government entities. The company leverages digital tools such as an app for waste collection schedules and online customer portals to enhance service delivery. The website content and structure indicate a stable regional market position with a focus on compliance and environmental responsibility. Partnerships with social organizations and community projects are highlighted, indicating a strong local ecosystem. Growth indicators include digital service expansion and community engagement initiatives.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is properly configured, and Google reCAPTCHA v3 is implemented to protect forms from spam and abuse. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security reduces the overall security posture. No security.txt or incident response information is published, which limits transparency and readiness perception. There are no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data in the HTML content. GDPR compliance is partially met with a privacy policy present but lacks a cookie consent mechanism. The security culture appears cautious but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
  2. Add a GDPR-compliant cookie consent banner to inform users and obtain consent for tracking cookies.
  3. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Enhance incident response readiness by providing clear security contact channels and response procedures.
  5. Regularly audit and update all WordPress plugins and themes to minimize risks from known vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GfA Lüneburg – gkAöR (gemeinsame kommunale Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts)
Description
Öffentlich rechtlicher Entsorgungsträger im Landkreis und in der Hansestadt Lüneburg mit ca. 220 Mitarbeitern, zertifizierter Entsorgungsfachbetrieb. Leistungen umfassen Sammlung und Transport von Abfällen, Kompostierung, Behandlung und Verwertung von Abfällen, Entsorgung von Problemabfällen, Containergestellung.
Key services
Abfallsammlung und Transport, Kompostierung von Bio- und Grünabfällen, Abfallbehandlung und Verwertung, Problemabfallentsorgung, Containergestellung
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.3, PHP, jQuery 3.7.1, Owl Carousel, FontAwesome, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Yoast SEO plugin, Contact Form 7, Ivory Search plugin
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Google reCAPTCHA v3 implemented on forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security plugins (Contact Form 7 with reCAPTCHA)

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is a public municipal waste management service provider
  2. Content is in German language and well structured
  3. No signs of phishing or malware
  4. No cookie consent banner despite GDPR relevance
  5. Security headers missing
  6. Use of modern WordPress plugins and SEO tools
  7. Contact information is available but no direct email addresses found in HTML
  8. Google reCAPTCHA v3 used for spam protection on forms
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress 6.8.3 platform with a well-maintained tech stack including jQuery, Owl Carousel, FontAwesome, and Google reCAPTCHA. SEO is enhanced using the Yoast SEO plugin, and search functionality is improved with Ivory Search. The site is mobile responsive and uses optimized images and lazy loading for performance. However, no explicit hosting provider information is available. Performance is moderate with room for improvement in caching and asset optimization. Accessibility is basic with some ARIA landmarks and skip links present but could be improved further. The technical debt appears low, but security best practices need strengthening. Overall, the infrastructure supports the business needs effectively but should evolve to meet higher security and privacy standards.
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 gfa-lueneburg.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 gfa-lueneburg.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.