Skip to main content

Security report for ggddrenthe.nl

GGD Drenthe · Healthcare · Netherlands

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

GGD Drenthe is a regional public health organization serving the province of Drenthe in the Netherlands. The website provides comprehensive information about their health services including vaccination programs, child health consultations, infectious disease control, and public health education. The organization targets residents of Drenthe and operates as a government health authority with a medium-sized operational scale since 2017. The website is built on the IPROX CMS platform, tailored for government and public sector use, and demonstrates good digital maturity with responsive design, clear navigation, and relevant content. From a technical perspective, the site uses modern web technologies including JavaScript and CSS, and is hosted on a platform provided by InfoProjects bv. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and accessibility features. SEO practices are well implemented with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced, cookie consent mechanisms, and no exposed sensitive data. However, some security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options are not explicitly detected and could be improved. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies that align with GDPR requirements. Contact information is prominently displayed including phone numbers and a contact form, enhancing business credibility and user trust. No terms of service or explicit security policy pages were found, and there is no vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file, which could be areas for future enhancement. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and well-suited for its public health mission. The domain registration details align with the organization's identity and location, supporting legitimacy. Strategic recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy, and establishing a vulnerability disclosure process to further strengthen security and compliance posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
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

3 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.

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  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.

    • 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
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching ggddrenthe.nl

This scan found 20 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
52
Security headers
90
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
77

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 Drenthe holds a strong position as a regional public health authority in the Netherlands, focusing on preventive health services and community well-being. Their business model is government-funded public service, targeting residents of Drenthe with services such as vaccination, child health monitoring, and infectious disease management. The organization benefits from a clear partnership ecosystem including links to the Gezondheidsatlas Drenthe and active social media engagement. Growth indicators include active news updates and public health campaigns. The website supports their mission by providing accessible information and multiple contact channels, reinforcing community trust and engagement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent mechanism in place, reflecting GDPR compliance. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. There is no published security policy or incident response contact, which limits transparency in security governance. The lack of a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file indicates that the organization may not have formalized processes for external security reporting. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhanced header configurations and formal security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and incident response procedures to increase transparency and trust.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program and consider adding a security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Regularly review and update privacy and cookie policies to maintain GDPR compliance and reflect any changes in data processing.
  5. Enhance monitoring and logging capabilities to detect and respond to security incidents promptly, strengthening overall security culture.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GGD Drenthe
Description
GGD Drenthe werkt aan gezondheid voor de Drenten! Zowel fysiek als op deze website geven we graag een beeld van wat wij doen om Drenthe gezond te houden.
Key services
Vaccinations, Consultation services for children, Health advice and information, Infectious disease control, Public health education
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, CSS, HTML5
Frameworks
IPROX.NET 4
Platforms
IPROX CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of CSRF tokens in forms

Analytics and tracking

Services
Piwik PRO
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Piwik PRO
Marketing tools
Piwik PRO analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is professionally designed and well-structured.
  2. Content is relevant and targeted to residents of Drenthe, Netherlands.
  3. Clear contact information and multiple communication channels provided.
  4. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  5. No evidence of security blocking or WAF interference.
  6. Use of IPROX CMS platform specialized for government/public sector.
  7. Social media presence on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitter, and WhatsApp.
  8. No visible terms of service or explicit security policy pages.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the IPROX.NET 4 CMS platform, a specialized content management system for government and large web environments. The technology stack includes standard web technologies such as HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. The site uses asynchronous loading for analytics scripts (Piwik PRO) to optimize performance. Mobile optimization and accessibility are well addressed with responsive design and ARIA attributes. SEO is supported through proper meta tags and Open Graph protocol. Hosting is provided by InfoProjects bv, indicating a stable and specialized hosting environment. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement through optimization of image sizes and script loading strategies. No deprecated or vulnerable libraries were detected in the provided HTML content.
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 ggddrenthe.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 ggddrenthe.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.