Security report for granngarden.se

Granngården · Retail · Sweden

High risk. 17 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

41/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Granngården is a well-established Swedish retail and e-commerce company founded in 1880, specializing in products for animal owners, gardeners, and farmers. It operates over 100 physical stores alongside a comprehensive online platform, positioning itself as a leading provider in its sector. The company benefits from a strong brand presence, consistent customer engagement, and a broad product range tailored to its target audience. Technically, the website leverages modern technologies including Microsoft Azure, ASP.NET, Episerver CMS, and integrates advanced analytics and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Google Tag Manager. Security measures are robust, with HTTPS enforcement, security headers, and secure form handling. Privacy compliance is well-managed through a detailed cookie consent mechanism and comprehensive privacy policies. Overall, the site demonstrates a mature digital infrastructure and a strong security posture, supporting its business credibility and customer trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view: 63/ 100 · Medium
Checks completed: 7of 7

NIS2 Art. 21(2)

(a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
(b) Incident handling: One indicator
(c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
(d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
(e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
(f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
(g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
(h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
(i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
(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

17 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

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
  References
  - CWE-319
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V12.2.1
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
  - GDPR Art. 32(1)(a)
  - NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
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
  References
  - CWE-319
  - OWASP A04:2025
  - ASVS V12.2.1
  - NIS2 21(2)(h)
  - IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
  - GDPR Art. 32(1)(a)
  - NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
Network security
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Telnet
  Port 23 (Telnet) is publicly accessible - Telnet - Unencrypted remote access
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Telnet using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: SMB
  Port 445 (SMB) is publicly accessible - SMB - Windows file sharing, high risk
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to SMB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL
  Port 1433 (MSSQL) is publicly accessible - MSSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MSSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Oracle
  Port 1521 (Oracle) is publicly accessible - Oracle - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Oracle using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MySQL
  Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: RDP
  Port 3389 (RDP) is publicly accessible - RDP - Remote Desktop, prime ransomware target
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to RDP using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL
  Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: Redis
  Port 6379 (Redis) is publicly accessible - Redis - In-memory database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to Redis using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- Critical
  Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB
  Port 27017 (MongoDB) is publicly accessible - MongoDB - NoSQL database
  What to do: Immediately restrict access to MongoDB using firewall or VPN
  References
  - 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
- 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
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC
  Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint
  What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS
  Port 139 (NetBIOS) is publicly accessible - NetBIOS - Windows file sharing
  What to do: Consider restricting access to NetBIOS or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
- High
  High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch
  Port 9200 (Elasticsearch) is publicly accessible - Elasticsearch - Search engine
  What to do: Consider restricting access to Elasticsearch or implementing strong authentication
  References
  - 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
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"
  References
  - CWE-1021
  - OWASP A06:2025
  - CAPEC-103
  - ASVS V3.4.6
  - OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
  - RFC 7034
- 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
  References
  - 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 granngarden.se

This scan found 32 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: 40
Email security: 75
DNS health: 65
Network security: 0
GDPR outside view: 63
Average: 41

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 · found on this site
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

Granngården holds a significant market position in the Swedish retail and e-commerce landscape, focusing on niche sectors like animal care, gardening, and agriculture. Its business model combines physical retail with online sales, enhancing customer reach and convenience. The company benefits from a parent organization, Felleskjøpet Agri SA, indicating strong backing and potential for resource sharing. The presence of extensive customer reviews and trust signals like verified buyer badges and detailed privacy disclosures reflect a customer-centric approach. The integration of multiple marketing and analytics platforms suggests a data-driven strategy to optimize user engagement and sales. The company’s partnerships with recognized brands and transparent business information further reinforce its competitive advantage and operational maturity.

Security posture

The website exhibits a strong security posture with mandatory HTTPS, comprehensive security headers, and no visible exposure of sensitive data. The use of anti-forgery tokens in forms indicates attention to preventing common web vulnerabilities. The cookie consent mechanism is detailed and compliant with GDPR, enhancing user privacy and regulatory adherence. However, there is no explicit security policy or incident response information publicly available, which could be improved to enhance transparency and preparedness. No vulnerable libraries or critical security issues were detected in the provided content. Overall, the security measures align well with industry best practices for a retail e-commerce platform.

Recommendations

Publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and user guidance.
Provide clear incident response contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ emails.
Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
Enhance visibility of Data Protection Officer contact information to improve GDPR compliance.
Regularly audit and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses

Vattenverksvägen 47, 21243 Malmö, Skåne, Sweden (map, opens in a new tab)

Legal name

Granngården AB

Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company: Granngården
Description: Välkommen till Granngården! I våra 100+ butiker och e-handel hittar du ett brett utbud av produkter för djurägare, trädgårdsfixare och lantbrukare.
Key services: Retail of animal products, Gardening supplies, Agricultural products, E-commerce platform
Content quality: good
Branding: consistent

Technology

Stack: Microsoft ASP.NET, Azure, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Cloudflare, CookieInformation.com, Testfreaks, Episerver CMS
Frameworks: ASP.NET
Platforms: Azure
Performance: moderate
Mobile: good
Accessibility: good
SEO: good

Security

Observed score

85/100

Good practices seen

HTTPS enforced
Use of security headers
No exposed sensitive data in HTML
Secure forms with anti-forgery tokens

Analytics and tracking

Services: Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity
Tracking level: extensive
Privacy practices: good

Advertising

Ad networks: Google Marketing Platform, Google Ads, DoubleClick, Facebook
Tracking pixels: Microsoft Clarity, Optimizely, Cloudflare, Adform
Marketing tools: Testfreaks
Transparency: good

Site quality

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

Key observations

Comprehensive cookie consent mechanism with detailed categories and third-party processors
Multiple customer reviews with verified buyer status and high average rating
Use of modern analytics and marketing tools with explicit privacy policies linked
Clear business information with physical address and parent company disclosed
No signs of WAF or content blocking
Secure HTTPS with good security headers and anti-forgery tokens on forms

Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern technology stack including Microsoft Azure hosting, ASP.NET framework, and Episerver CMS, ensuring scalability and reliability. It integrates multiple third-party services for analytics, marketing, and customer reviews, indicating a mature digital marketing approach. The site is optimized for mobile devices and accessibility, with good SEO practices evident from meta tags and structured data. Performance is moderate, with lazy loading of images and asynchronous script loading. The presence of comprehensive cookie consent and privacy mechanisms reflects a high level of technical maturity in privacy management. Opportunities exist to further enhance security transparency and incident response readiness.

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.

OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)

Retrieved 2026-10-25

Feedback on this report

Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.

Priority findings

GDPR outside view

No HTTPS encryption

SSL/TLS

No HTTPS Encryption

Network security

Critical Service Exposed: Telnet

Critical Service Exposed: SMB

Critical Service Exposed: MSSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Oracle

Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

Critical Service Exposed: RDP

Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

Critical Service Exposed: Redis

Critical Service Exposed: MongoDB

High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

High-Risk Service Exposed: RPC

High-Risk Service Exposed: NetBIOS

High-Risk Service Exposed: Elasticsearch

Security headers

Missing X-Frame-Options header

Missing Content-Security-Policy header

Keep watching granngarden.se

Daily monitoring

Full report

Results by check

Security headers, 6 findings, score 40/100

SSL/TLS, 1 finding, score 0/100

Email security, 4 findings, score 75/100

DNS health, 5 findings, score 65/100

Network security, 14 findings, score 0/100

GDPR outside view, 2 findings, score 63/100

NIS2 outside view, Earlier method, rescan for details · not counted in the security score–