Skip to main content

Security report for interlink.org

Interlink · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Interlink is a socially-driven company builder focused on developing, funding, and implementing solutions to social, environmental, and economic challenges. Positioned as a medium-sized enterprise based in Germany, it operates multiple companies across sectors such as green energy, bot protection, coworking spaces, and resource reuse. The website reflects a strong commitment to sustainability and social entrepreneurship, targeting startups, freelancers, and established companies. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with Elementor and optimized for performance and SEO, employing modern plugins and privacy-compliant analytics. Security posture is generally strong with valid SSL, HSTS, and security headers, though TLS protocols are currently disabled, which is a critical area for improvement. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, indicating room for maturity in security governance. Overall, Interlink presents a professional and trustworthy digital presence aligned with its mission and audience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

6 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 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 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

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

Keep watching interlink.org

This scan found 16 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
95
Security headers
50
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
73

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

Interlink leverages a business model centered on building and supporting companies that address pressing global issues through innovative technology and social entrepreneurship. Its portfolio includes bot protection services, coworking spaces, decentralized hydropower plants, and sustainability initiatives like resource reuse and biodiversity preservation. The company targets a diverse audience including entrepreneurs, startups, and socially conscious businesses. Its market position is strengthened by partnerships and co-shareholdings in specialized ventures such as Friendly Captcha and Material24. The website's multilingual support and comprehensive content indicate a strategic approach to international reach and community engagement. The absence of direct contact emails suggests a preference for controlled communication channels, possibly via contact forms.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with a valid SSL certificate issued by a recognized authority, strong key length, and HSTS enabled with preload and subdomain inclusion. Security headers such as X-Content-Type-Options and X-XSS-Protection are present, mitigating common web vulnerabilities. The site is free from known SSL/TLS vulnerabilities like Heartbleed, POODLE, FREAK, and Logjam. However, the lack of enabled TLS protocols (TLS 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3) is a significant security gap that could expose users to downgrade attacks or incompatibility issues. DNSSEC and CAA records are not implemented, which could improve DNS security and certificate issuance control. No public security policy, incident response plan, or vulnerability disclosure mechanism is found, indicating limited transparency in security governance. Cookie consent and privacy policies are well implemented, supporting GDPR compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Enable TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 protocols to ensure secure and modern encrypted connections.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  3. Add CAA DNS records to restrict certificate authorities authorized to issue certificates for the domain.
  4. Publish a security policy and incident response plan on the website to enhance transparency and trust.
  5. Create and publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress CMS platform using Elementor for page building and WP Rocket for performance optimization. It employs jQuery, Font Awesome, TranslatePress for multilingual support, and Complianz for GDPR cookie consent management. Analytics are handled by Plausible Analytics, a privacy-focused service. The site is hosted on a server running nginx with an IPv4 and IPv6 address. Performance metrics indicate fast load times and optimized resource usage. Mobile optimization and accessibility are rated good, with responsive design and ARIA attributes present. SEO is enhanced by Rank Math PRO plugin and structured data in JSON-LD format describing the organization and website. Technical debt appears low, but security protocol configuration requires modernization.
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 interlink.org. 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 interlink.org.

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.