Skip to main content

Security report for ggd.nl

GGD · Healthcare · Netherlands

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in SSL/TLS.

Security score

81/100

Risk levelLow

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

GGD is the national public health organization in the Netherlands, providing a wide range of health services including vaccination programs, cancer screenings, health campaigns, and emergency preparedness. The website serves as a portal to regional GGD and GHOR entities, targeting Dutch residents and health professionals. The organization is large, government-affiliated, and focused on public health protection and promotion. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern frameworks and integrates analytics and consent management tools, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is strong with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms, though some security headers could be improved. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with GDPR requirements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
88/ 100 · Low
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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching ggd.nl

This scan found 17 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
67
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
88
Average
81

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

GGD holds a strong market position as a government health authority with extensive regional presence. Its business model is service-oriented, focusing on public health and safety. The organization benefits from a large professional workforce and partnerships with regional health and safety bodies (GHOR). Revenue streams are likely government-funded. The website supports transparency and engagement with citizens and professionals. The partnership ecosystem includes analytics and consent providers, enhancing compliance and data insights. Growth indicators include digital presence expansion and comprehensive service listings.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security maturity level with enforced HTTPS, cookie consent, and use of reputable analytics platforms. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. However, the absence of explicit security headers like CSP and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. There is no public incident response or security policy page, which could enhance transparency and readiness. GDPR compliance is well addressed through detailed cookie policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced header policies and incident response disclosures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan accessible to users.
  3. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins for vulnerabilities and update accordingly.
  4. Enhance navigation clarity and user experience for easier access to key information.
  5. Maintain and update cookie and privacy policies to reflect evolving regulations and technologies.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GGD
Description
De publieke gezondheidszorg zet zich in voor de gezondheid van alle inwoners van Nederland, met 12.000 professionals die zich inzetten via vaccinatieprogramma’s, bevolkingsonderzoeken, gezondheidscampagnes en ondersteuning bij stoppen met roken, luchtkwaliteitsmonitoring en rampenpreventie.
Key services
Vaccination programs, Cancer population screening, Health campaigns, Smoking cessation support, Air quality monitoring, Disaster and emergency preparedness
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Piwik PRO analytics, Cookiebot consent management, Google Maps API
Frameworks
FoundationPress WordPress theme
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent with opt-in/out
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security-focused plugins (implied by Cookiebot and GTM)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Piwik PRO, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Piwik PRO
Marketing tools
Cookiebot
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a public health portal for GGD and GHOR organizations in the Netherlands.
  2. Content is in Dutch and targeted at residents and professionals in public health.
  3. Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism is implemented with detailed cookie categories and descriptions.
  4. Multiple regional GGD and GHOR entities are listed with contact details and locations.
  5. No evidence of security policy or incident response pages publicly available.
  6. Use of modern web technologies and analytics tools with privacy compliance.
  7. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected; site fully accessible.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with the FoundationPress theme and child theme customization. It integrates jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Piwik PRO analytics, Cookiebot for consent management, and Google Maps API for location services. The site is mobile optimized with good accessibility features and SEO meta tags. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements in loading speed and script optimization. The technical stack is modern and well-maintained, supporting a large-scale public health information portal. Opportunities exist to enhance security headers and streamline third-party integrations for better performance and security.
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 ggd.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 ggd.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.