Skip to main content

Security report for ggdru.nl

GGD regio Utrecht · Healthcare · Netherlands

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

GGD regio Utrecht is a regional public health organization serving 26 municipalities in the Utrecht region of the Netherlands. The website provides health support and information primarily targeting residents and professionals within this region. The organization appears well-established with a domain age since 2013 and consistent WHOIS data. The website is built on WordPress and employs modern technologies including Google Analytics 4 and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking, with a functional cookie consent mechanism that aligns with GDPR requirements. The site is well-structured, mobile-optimized, and accessible, reflecting a mature digital presence. Security posture is strong with HTTPS enforced and DNSSEC enabled, though explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not publicly available. Overall, the website demonstrates a good balance of usability, compliance, and security appropriate for a public health authority.

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

4 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 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';…

  2. 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 ggdru.nl

This scan found 23 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
95
Security headers
15
Email security
75
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
71

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 in the healthcare sector as a public health service provider. Its business model focuses on supporting health for residents and professionals in the Utrecht region. The website content and metadata emphasize regional health services, consultation locations, and public health information. The company is medium-sized, founded in 2013, and does not show evidence of subsidiaries or parent companies. The digital presence is consistent and professional, with trust signals such as structured data and cookie consent. The use of Google Analytics and Tag Manager indicates a data-driven approach to user engagement and service improvement.

Security posture

The website enforces HTTPS and has DNSSEC enabled, indicating a secure domain configuration. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Security headers are minimal but DNSSEC presence is a positive indicator. The site uses third-party scripts including Google Analytics and ReadSpeaker, which are common but require ongoing monitoring for vulnerabilities. There is no visible security policy or incident response contact information, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. The cookie consent mechanism is implemented, supporting privacy compliance. Overall, the security posture is good but could benefit from enhanced security headers and explicit policies.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page detailing security practices and frameworks.
  2. Add incident response contact information such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  3. Implement a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Enhance HTTP security headers including Content Security Policy (CSP), HSTS, and X-Frame-Options.
  5. Regularly audit and update third-party scripts to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GGD regio Utrecht
Description
GGD regio Utrecht ondersteunt inwoners en professionals in de 26 gemeenten binnen regio Utrecht op het gebied van gezondheid.
Key services
health support, public health information, consultation locations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.1, Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager, ReadSpeaker, jQuery, Slick Carousel, Lozad.js
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • DNSSEC enabled
  • Cookie consent banner
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics 4, Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google Analytics 4
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 mechanisms
  2. Content is in Dutch and targeted at residents and professionals in Utrecht region
  3. Cookie consent banner is present and functional
  4. No explicit terms of service or security policy pages found
  5. Contact information is primarily via contact form; no explicit emails or phone numbers found in HTML
  6. Uses modern analytics and tracking tools with privacy considerations
  7. Good SEO and accessibility practices observed
  8. No suspicious or malicious content detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Slick Carousel, and Lozad.js for lazy loading. It integrates Google Analytics 4 and Google Tag Manager for analytics and tracking. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with good SEO metadata including Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. Hosting details are limited but the domain registrar is Realtime Register with DNSSEC enabled, indicating a secure DNS setup. Performance is moderate, with asynchronous loading of analytics scripts. The site uses ReadSpeaker for accessibility enhancements. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern and well-maintained, supporting a professional online presence.
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 ggdru.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 ggdru.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.