Skip to main content

Security report for ggdzw.nl

GGD Zaanstreek-Waterland · Healthcare · Netherlands

Medium risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Network security.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

GGD Zaanstreek-Waterland is a regional public health authority in the Netherlands providing vaccination services, health advice, and reliable public health information to residents and professionals in the Zaanstreek-Waterland region. The website is professionally designed, well-branded, and targets local citizens and healthcare professionals. The digital infrastructure is based on WordPress with modern plugins and technologies such as Yoast SEO and Google reCAPTCHA, indicating a mature technical setup. Security posture is strong with HTTPS, security headers, and a cookie consent mechanism in place, although dedicated security policies and incident response contacts are not published. Overall, the site demonstrates good compliance with GDPR and privacy standards, with clear contact channels and social media presence enhancing trust. The domain registration data aligns well with the organization's identity, supporting legitimacy.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

2 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. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching ggdzw.nl

This scan found 15 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
95
Security headers
90
Email security
80
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
80
Average
73

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 an essential public health service provider in the healthcare sector, focusing on vaccination and health promotion. Its market position is that of a trusted regional government entity. The business model is service-oriented, funded likely by public sources, targeting local residents and healthcare professionals. The website content and social media links indicate active engagement and transparency. No commercial advertising or affiliate programs are detected, consistent with a government health service. The company was founded or at least registered online in 2018, with no parent or subsidiary companies indicated.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with good SSL configuration and implements multiple security headers, enhancing protection against common web attacks. The use of Google reCAPTCHA on forms helps mitigate automated abuse. Cookie consent is granular and GDPR compliant. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the analysis. However, the absence of a published security policy or incident response contact reduces transparency in security governance. There is no evidence of a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file. Overall, the security posture is solid but could be improved by publishing formal security policies and incident response information.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Provide clear incident response contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  3. Implement and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Maintain regular updates of WordPress core and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency by including terms of service and data protection officer contact information.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
GGD Zaanstreek-Waterland
Description
Wilt u zo gezond mogelijk zijn en blijven? Bij GGD Zaanstreek-Waterland kunt u terecht voor vaccinaties, betrouwbare tips en advies
Key services
Vaccinations, Health advice, Public health information
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Yoast SEO, Google reCAPTCHA, Ajax Search Pro, FontAwesome
Frameworks
WordPress theme Extra
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA for forms
  • Cookie consent banner with granular categories
  • No exposed sensitive data detected

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
Yoast SEO
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 public health authority site in the Netherlands
  2. Content is in Dutch and professionally presented
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with detailed categories
  4. No terms of service page found
  5. Contact information includes a clearly labeled phone number and contact form
  6. Social media presence is active and linked
  7. Security headers and HTTPS are properly configured
  8. No critical security issues detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using the Extra theme and child theme, leveraging jQuery and modern plugins like Yoast SEO and Ajax Search Pro. It uses Google reCAPTCHA for form protection and FontAwesome for icons. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and accessibility features such as skip navigation links. Performance is moderate, with external resources loaded from trusted CDNs. SEO is well implemented with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. No critical technical debt or outdated technologies were detected, but continuous monitoring and updates are recommended to maintain security and performance.
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 ggdzw.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 ggdzw.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.