Skip to main content

Security report for hostingpalvelu.fi

Suomen Hostingpalvelu Oy · Technology · Finland

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Suomen Hostingpalvelu Oy is a Finnish technology company specializing in domain registration, web hosting, and website building services. Established in 2008, it has positioned itself as a trusted local provider with a strong emphasis on customer service and technical reliability. The company offers a range of hosting packages, including AI-assisted WordPress hosting, targeting both individual and business customers in Finland. Their partnership with Suomen Yrittäjät further strengthens their market credibility. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern frameworks such as Bootstrap and jQuery, and integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools like Google Analytics, Hotjar, and Trustmary. The site is well-optimized for SEO, mobile responsiveness, and accessibility, reflecting a mature digital infrastructure. Hosting servers are located in Finland, ensuring good performance and compliance with local data regulations. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS with strong SSL configuration and includes standard security headers. It employs cookie consent mechanisms compliant with GDPR. However, explicit security policies and incident response contacts are not publicly available, representing an area for improvement. No critical vulnerabilities or suspicious patterns were detected. Overall, Suomen Hostingpalvelu Oy demonstrates a high level of professionalism, trustworthiness, and compliance, making it a reliable service provider in the Finnish hosting market. Strategic enhancements in security transparency and incident response readiness would further strengthen their security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
85/ 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

3 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. 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

  3. 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 hostingpalvelu.fi

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
72
Security headers
70
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
85
Average
66

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 company operates in the competitive Finnish hosting market, leveraging strong customer service and localized hosting infrastructure as key differentiators. Their business model focuses on recurring revenue from domain registrations and hosting subscriptions, supplemented by value-added services like WordPress maintenance and AI tools. The target audience includes small to medium-sized enterprises and individual users seeking reliable and easy-to-use web services. Positive customer testimonials and partnerships indicate a solid reputation and growth potential. The company maintains a clear brand identity and consistent messaging, supporting customer trust and retention.

Security posture

The website exhibits a mature security posture with HTTPS enforcement, modern security headers, and GDPR-compliant cookie management. The absence of a published security policy or incident response contact limits transparency and may affect customer confidence in handling security incidents. The use of third-party analytics and marketing scripts is managed with consent mechanisms, reducing privacy risks. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were identified. To enhance security maturity, the company should consider publishing a dedicated security policy, incident response procedures, and a vulnerability disclosure program.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a clear and accessible security policy outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Provide explicit incident response contact information, such as a security@ or abuse@ email address.
  3. Implement and publicize a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and libraries to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency around data retention policies and user privacy practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Suomen Hostingpalvelu Oy
Registration number
1753494-9
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Suomen Hostingpalvelu Oy
Description
Asiantunteva asiakaspalvelumme aina tukenasi. Aloita kotisivujen, verkkokaupan tai sähköpostin hankinta Hostingpalvelusta!
Key services
Domain registration, Web hosting (webhotellit), Website building tools (kotisivukone), WordPress hosting and maintenance, Email hosting, Additional services and training
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Bootstrap CSS, jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Iubenda (cookie consent), Hotjar, Trustmary
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
excellent

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Use of reCAPTCHA
  • Cookie consent management
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar, Metricool
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads, DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Hotjar, Trustmary, Metricool
Marketing tools
Google Optimize, Iubenda Cookie Consent
Transparency
good

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Strong local Finnish hosting and service provider with clear business identity.
  3. Comprehensive customer support and contact options.
  4. Good use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  6. No explicit security policy or incident response information found.
  7. Use of multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools with consent mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a stable and widely used CMS platform (WordPress) with a modern tech stack including Bootstrap and jQuery. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools with proper consent management, supporting data-driven business decisions. The site is optimized for performance, mobile responsiveness, and SEO, contributing to a positive user experience. Hosting infrastructure is localized in Finland, ensuring compliance with regional data protection laws and good latency. Technical risks are minimal, but ongoing maintenance of third-party dependencies and security configurations is recommended to sustain operational integrity.
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 hostingpalvelu.fi. 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 hostingpalvelu.fi.

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.