Skip to main content

Security report for grand.no

Grand Hotel Oslo · Hospitality · Norway

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

42/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Grand Hotel Oslo is a historic and iconic hospitality business located in the heart of Oslo, Norway. It offers premium hotel accommodations, multiple restaurants and bars, event hosting facilities, and spa services. The hotel targets tourists, business travelers, and event organizers, positioning itself as a luxury and culturally significant venue. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with clear business information and trust indicators such as environmental certification and social media presence. Technically, the site uses modern JavaScript libraries and integrates Google Analytics and Tag Manager for tracking, hosted likely on Microsoft Azure infrastructure. However, a critical security gap exists as the website lacks HTTPS/SSL encryption, exposing visitors to potential risks. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant, but no explicit security or incident response policies are found. Overall, the website is functional and content-rich but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 100 · Critical
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

9 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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';…

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

Keep watching grand.no

This scan found 19 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
42

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 business operates under the parent company Scandic and leverages partnerships for booking and gift card services. Its market position is strong within the Norwegian hospitality sector, offering a wide range of services from accommodation to dining and events. The business model is service-oriented with revenue streams from room bookings, food and beverage sales, event hosting, and ancillary services like spa and gift cards. The website's content and structure support clear navigation and user engagement, targeting both local and international customers. The presence of environmental certification (Svanemerket) adds to its competitive advantage. The company maintains active social media channels to engage customers and promote offerings.

Security posture

The security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS/SSL, which is a critical vulnerability that undermines user trust and data protection. No advanced security headers or policies are implemented, and there is no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information. The use of third-party scripts and analytics is standard but should be monitored for vulnerabilities. The lack of TLS protocols and cipher suites indicates the site is served over plain HTTP, exposing it to interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. Immediate remediation is required to implement SSL certificates and enhance security headers to align with best practices and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL/TLS certificate and serve the website exclusively over HTTPS.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload options.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  4. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries for vulnerabilities and update them accordingly.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript stack including jQuery, Bluebird promises, bxSlider, and Flatpickr for UI components and date selection. Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics are integrated for marketing and analytics purposes. The hosting appears to be on Microsoft Azure, inferred from IP and blob storage URLs. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and uses a custom CMS platform (Communicator Cloud). Performance metrics are not provided, but the site includes multiple external resources which may impact load times. Accessibility features are basic, and SEO optimization is good with proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The lack of HTTPS is the most significant technical risk. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires security hardening and performance monitoring.
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 grand.no. 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 grand.no.

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.