Skip to main content

Security report for greekenergyforum.com

Greek Energy Forum · Energy · Greece

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Greek Energy Forum is a non-for-profit organization established in 2013, focusing on the energy sector in Greece and the wider Southeast European region. It offers services such as hosting events, publishing research and opinions, and providing memberships to energy professionals and stakeholders. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence with clear navigation and relevant content tailored to its target audience. Technically, the site uses a modern tech stack including Bootstrap, jQuery, Cookiebot for cookie consent, and Google Analytics for tracking. The site is mobile optimized and performs moderately well, though some accessibility features are basic. Security posture is moderate; HTTPS is implied but no explicit security headers were detected in the provided data, and the login form relies on client-side validation only. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism present, but no explicit GDPR compliance statements or data protection officer contact found. WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which raises concerns about domain legitimacy despite the professional website content. Overall, the site is functional and trustworthy from a content perspective but would benefit from improved security and transparency regarding domain registration.

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

5 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  3. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching greekenergyforum.com

This scan found 28 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
62
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
50
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
61

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 Greek Energy Forum holds a leading position as a non-profit energy organization in Greece and Southeast Europe, targeting energy professionals and stakeholders. Its business model revolves around knowledge sharing, networking, and advocacy through events, publications, and memberships. The organization leverages partnerships and publishes insightful content to maintain relevance and authority in the energy sector. Revenue streams likely include membership fees, event sponsorships, and donations (evidenced by the PayPal donate button). The website's partnership with Pixelworks for web development indicates a professional approach to digital presence. Growth indicators include regular events and publications, but the lack of visible certifications or security policies may limit trust among more security-conscious stakeholders.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level. HTTPS is used, and cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content Security Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options reduces the overall security posture. The login form uses client-side validation only, which is insufficient for secure authentication. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, and no security certifications are displayed. The missing WHOIS data further impacts trustworthiness. To improve, the organization should implement comprehensive security headers, enforce server-side validation, and publish security policies and incident response contacts to enhance transparency and readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify HTTP security headers including CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  2. Enforce server-side validation and secure authentication mechanisms on all forms, especially login.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  4. Improve transparency by ensuring WHOIS registration data is accurate and publicly available.
  5. Conduct regular security audits of third-party scripts and dependencies to mitigate vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Greek Energy Forum
Description
The Greek Energy Forum, founded in January 2013, is the leading non-for-profit energy organisation focusing on Greece and the wider Southeast European region.
Key services
Events, Publications, Memberships, Networking, Energy Academy
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Bootstrap, jQuery, Cookiebot, Google Analytics (gtag.js), PayPal Donate SDK, Fancybox
Frameworks
Bootstrap
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by external scripts loaded over HTTPS)
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, AddThis
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
AddThis
Marketing tools
AddThis
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 rich content and navigation
  2. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected
  3. WHOIS data is missing or domain not found, which is unusual for an active site
  4. Cookie consent is implemented via Cookiebot
  5. No explicit security headers detected in provided data
  6. Login form lacks server-side validation indication
  7. Multiple external trusted domains used for analytics and scripts
  8. No adult or questionable content detected
  9. Contact information is clearly provided with email and physical address
  10. No explicit privacy or security certifications displayed
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Bootstrap and jQuery, with additional libraries such as Fancybox and Cookiebot for enhanced user experience and compliance. Google Analytics and AddThis are used for analytics and social sharing. The site loads scripts asynchronously and uses modern CSS and responsive design techniques, resulting in good mobile optimization and user experience. However, some scripts are loaded with type='text/plain', likely as part of the cookie consent mechanism, which may delay execution. No CMS or hosting provider information is evident from the source. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in accessibility and SEO optimization. The technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security configurations.
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 greekenergyforum.com. 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 greekenergyforum.com.

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.