Skip to main content

Security report for ggdgm.nl

GGD Gelderland-Midden · Government · Netherlands

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and DNS health.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

GGD Gelderland-Midden is a regional government public health service operating in the Gelderland-Midden region of the Netherlands. The website serves as an official platform providing health-related information, crisis communication, and public health advice to residents and stakeholders within the region. The organization is positioned as a trusted government entity with a medium-sized operational scope, founded in 2020. Technically, the website employs a modern Angular framework with integration of multiple analytics tools including Matomo, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager. The site is secured with HTTPS and DNSSEC, indicating a strong baseline security posture. The design is professional, mobile-optimized, and accessible, providing a good user experience. From a security perspective, while the site benefits from secure transport and DNS security, it lacks explicit security headers and published security policies such as a security.txt or vulnerability disclosure statement. Privacy compliance is partial, with a cookie consent banner present but no visible privacy policy or terms of service pages. Contact information is not explicitly provided in the HTML content, which may impact user trust and compliance. Overall, the website is legitimate and trustworthy as a government service portal but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security disclosures, improved transparency on contact points, and implementation of security best practices to further strengthen its posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 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

3 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 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';…

  2. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • High

      Unregistered MX Record

      MX record points to unregistered domain:

      What to do: Remove or fix MX record pointing to unregistered domain

      • RFC 5321 §5.1
      • NIS2 21(2)(i)
      • IR 2024/2690 12.4: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 12.4: Asset inventory
      • NIST CM-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-8: System Component Inventory

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

Keep watching ggdgm.nl

This scan found 16 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
30
Email security
100
DNS health
55
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
78

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 Gelderland-Midden operates as a government public health authority serving a defined regional population. Its business model is non-commercial, focused on public service delivery and health promotion. The organization leverages digital channels to disseminate information and engage with the community. The website's market position is that of an authoritative regional health entity with a stable presence since 2020. The use of multiple analytics platforms suggests an interest in monitoring user engagement and improving service delivery. The absence of commercial or affiliate links aligns with its government mandate. Strategic observations include the need to enhance digital trust signals through privacy and security policy publication and to improve direct contact availability to support citizen engagement and compliance with regulatory frameworks.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level with HTTPS and DNSSEC enabled, ensuring secure communications and domain integrity. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others represents a missed opportunity to harden the site against common web attacks. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. The absence of a security.txt file or vulnerability disclosure policy limits transparency and responsiveness to security incidents. Privacy compliance is partial, with cookie consent mechanisms but no detailed privacy policy. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not visible on the site. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a government site but could be improved by adopting additional security best practices and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service pages to improve transparency and GDPR compliance.
  2. Implement and configure security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance site security.
  3. Create and publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability disclosure and incident reporting.
  4. Add explicit contact information including security and privacy contacts to improve user trust and compliance.
  5. Regularly audit and update analytics and tracking scripts to ensure privacy compliance and minimize user tracking.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GGD Gelderland-Midden
Description
Public health service for the Gelderland-Midden region in the Netherlands providing health-related information and services.
Key services
Public health information, Health advice, Crisis communication
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Clarity, Matomo Analytics, Visitor Analytics, Angular (implied by ngcontent attributes), Custom fonts (Google Fonts Open Sans, PT Sans)
Frameworks
Angular
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • DNSSEC enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data detected in HTML
  • Use of security-focused scripts loaded asynchronously

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo, Microsoft Clarity, Visitor Analytics, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Matomo Analytics, Visitor Analytics
Marketing tools
Matomo, Microsoft Clarity, Visitor Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a regional government health service site
  2. Content is in Dutch language
  3. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service pages found
  4. Cookie consent banner present with accept/decline options
  5. Multiple analytics and tracking scripts used
  6. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in HTML content
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information found
  8. Website uses modern frontend framework (Angular)
  9. HTTPS and DNSSEC enabled indicating good security posture
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Angular framework, leveraging asynchronous loading of multiple analytics and tracking scripts including Matomo, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager. The use of Google Fonts and custom icon fonts enhances visual appeal. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible with semantic HTML and ARIA attributes implied by Angular usage. Performance is moderate, with multiple external scripts potentially impacting load times. No CMS is explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary content management solution. Hosting provider details are not evident from the HTML content. Technical risks include the lack of security headers and absence of documented security policies. Opportunities exist to optimize script loading and improve SEO metadata completeness.
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 ggdgm.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 ggdgm.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.