Skip to main content

Security report for hogrefe-online.com

Other · N/a

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

Security score

69/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website represents a test system interface branded as Hogrefe Testsystem, likely used for psychological or educational testing purposes. The content is minimal and technical, indicating an internal or client-facing application rather than a public marketing site. The technical infrastructure relies on ExtJS 4, log4javascript, dayjs, and pdf.js libraries, reflecting a moderately modern but somewhat dated technology stack. The site lacks comprehensive SEO and accessibility features and shows basic mobile optimization. Security posture is moderate with HTTPS assumed but no visible security headers or advanced protections. The login form is present but posts to a dummy endpoint, suggesting a test or staging environment. WHOIS data is unavailable, raising concerns about domain registration legitimacy. Overall, the site is functional for its apparent purpose but lacks public-facing business and compliance information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

    • 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

  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 hogrefe-online.com

This scan found 22 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
67
Security headers
55
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
69

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention hogrefe-online.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
492
Employees
0
Customers
492
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
15%

2 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for hogrefe-online.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

The site targets internal users or clients of Hogrefe's testing software, focusing on delivering a test system interface. There is no public business information, contact details, or marketing content. The business model appears to be software provision for psychological or educational assessments. The absence of WHOIS data and public policies limits trust and transparency. No partnerships or external integrations are evident. The site likely supports a niche user base within Hogrefe's ecosystem.

Security posture

Security maturity is basic. The site uses HTTPS but lacks critical security headers such as CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options. The login form is minimal and posts to a non-functional endpoint, indicating no real authentication flow in this environment. No incident response or security policies are published. No vulnerabilities are explicitly detected in the provided content, but the absence of security best practices and WHOIS transparency reduces trust. The site should improve header configurations, secure authentication, and publish security policies to enhance posture.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  2. Replace dummy login endpoint with a secure, validated authentication service and add bot mitigation measures.
  3. Publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Obtain and maintain proper domain registration with visible WHOIS data to enhance legitimacy.
  5. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability scans to identify and remediate risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
The website appears to be a test system interface for Hogrefe, likely related to psychological or educational testing software. No explicit business description is provided in the content.
Key services
psychological/educational test system interface
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
ExtJS 4, log4javascript, dayjs, pdf.js
Frameworks
ExtJS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS assumed (URL is https)
  • No visible exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Login form uses POST method with autocomplete enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a test system interface for Hogrefe, likely internal or client-facing
  2. No WHOIS data available, domain may be unregistered or WHOIS blocked
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  4. No contact information or business details provided
  5. No external links or social media references detected
  6. Uses ExtJS 4 and other JavaScript libraries for UI
  7. No security headers detected in provided data
  8. Login form present but posts to dummy.html, indicating test environment
  9. No advertising or analytics scripts detected
  10. Content is minimal and functional for a test system
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses ExtJS 4 framework for UI, supplemented by log4javascript for logging, dayjs for date/time handling, and pdf.js for PDF rendering. The site is served over HTTPS with no visible CMS or hosting provider information. Performance is moderate with preloaded images and scripts. SEO is minimal with basic meta tags and no structured data. Accessibility is basic with no ARIA roles or landmarks detected. The site is not optimized for mobile beyond basic viewport settings. The login form uses POST with autocomplete enabled but targets a dummy page, indicating a non-production environment. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but dated and lacking modern best practices.
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 hogrefe-online.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 hogrefe-online.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.