Skip to main content

Security report for ggdflevoland.nl

GGD Flevoland · Government · Netherlands

Low risk. 1 critical or high finding in GDPR outside view.

Security score

83/100

Risk levelLow

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

GGD Flevoland is a regional public health organization in the Netherlands focused on protecting and promoting the health of all residents, with special attention to vulnerable groups. Their services include infectious disease control, vaccination programs, social care, child health services, and travel health advice. The website targets both residents and healthcare professionals in the Flevoland region, positioning itself as a trusted government health authority. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern frameworks like UIkit and integrates privacy-conscious analytics via Matomo. SEO and accessibility are well implemented, with structured data enhancing search visibility. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though some security headers and explicit policies could be improved. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and compliant with GDPR, though it lacks explicit terms of service and incident response information.

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

1 finding 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

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

Keep watching ggdflevoland.nl

This scan found 16 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
90
Security headers
85
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
83

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 organization operates as a government healthcare entity serving the Flevoland region. Its business model is public service funded by government budgets, focusing on preventive health and social care. The website reflects a mature digital presence with clear navigation and content relevant to its audience. Partnerships with regional health and emergency services are evident through linked domains. The lack of direct contact emails or phone numbers on the site suggests a controlled communication approach, likely centralized through contact forms. The site’s consistent branding and active social media presence support its credibility and community engagement.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS and privacy-respecting analytics. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. However, the absence of security headers like Content Security Policy and HSTS is a gap. There is no public security policy or vulnerability disclosure mechanism, which could hinder incident response transparency. The site does not expose contact channels for security incidents, limiting direct communication for abuse or vulnerability reporting. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from formalized policies and enhanced header configurations.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Add security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to improve protection.
  3. Introduce a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  4. Provide explicit contact information for security incidents (e.g., security@ or abuse@ email).
  5. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GGD Flevoland
Description
De GGD bewaakt, beschermt en bevordert de gezondheid van iedereen, met speciale aandacht voor mensen in kwetsbare situaties. Dit doen we door risico’s voor de gezondheid te voorkomen en de gezondheid van àlle inwoners te bevorderen.
Key services
Infectieziekten monitoring and advice, Vaccinations, Public health research, Maatschappelijke zorg (social care), Child health services, Travel advice and vaccinations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, Yoast SEO Premium, jQuery 3.7.1, UIkit, Algolia Search, Matomo Analytics, Google Translate
Frameworks
UIkit
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Matomo for privacy-respecting analytics
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is primarily in Dutch and targeted at residents and professionals in Flevoland.
  3. Strong use of structured data and SEO best practices.
  4. No explicit terms of service found.
  5. Contact information is available via a contact page but no direct emails or phone numbers found in HTML.
  6. Social media presence is active and linked.
  7. No visible security policy or incident response information.
  8. Use of privacy-respecting analytics (Matomo) instead of Google Analytics.
  9. Good mobile optimization and accessibility features.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress 6.8.1 with Yoast SEO Premium for SEO optimization, UIkit for frontend framework, and Algolia for search functionality. It integrates Matomo for analytics, emphasizing privacy. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with lazy loading for images and deferred script loading to improve performance. No hosting provider details were found, but the site uses HTTPS with valid certificates. The technical stack is modern and well-maintained, though performance is moderate, suggesting room for optimization. The use of Google Translate indicates an effort to support multilingual users. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a stable and user-friendly experience.
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 ggdflevoland.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 ggdflevoland.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.