Skip to main content

Security report for iphh.net

Internet Port Hamburg GmbH · Telecommunications · Germany

Medium risk. 4 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

Internet Port Hamburg GmbH (IPHH) is a medium-sized telecommunications and datacenter service provider based in Hamburg, Germany, founded in 1996 and part of the Portus Data Centers Company. The company specializes in colocation, housing, managed services, IP and fiber optic connectivity, and offers tailored datacenter solutions primarily for business and enterprise customers. Their market position is that of a reliable full-service provider with a strong focus on personalized customer service and technical excellence. The website content is well-structured and professional, targeting business clients with detailed service descriptions and contact options. Technically, the site uses the Contao CMS with common JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Swipe.js, and has moderate performance and mobile optimization. However, the security posture is weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, absence of security headers, and missing modern TLS protocols. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy and terms of service present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is functional and credible but requires urgent improvements in security and privacy compliance to meet modern standards.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of iphh.net. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 100 · High
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

4 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 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

    • 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 iphh.net

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. 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
90
Security headers
65
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
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

IPHH operates in the telecommunications sector, focusing on datacenter and hosting services for business customers. Their competitive advantage lies in personalized service, technical expertise, and ISO 27001 certification, which supports their security claims. The business model is B2B, offering infrastructure and managed services with a strong emphasis on reliability and security. Revenue streams likely include colocation fees, managed service contracts, and connectivity solutions. The company targets enterprise clients requiring high security and customized IT infrastructure. The partnership with Portus Data Centers enhances their market credibility. Growth indicators include recent infrastructure investments such as new power supply installations. The company maintains a professional online presence with clear navigation and contact channels, supporting customer engagement and trust.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of IPHH's website is low due to the absence of HTTPS and a valid SSL certificate, which is a critical vulnerability exposing users to data interception risks. While SPF and DMARC DNS records are properly configured, indicating good email security practices, the lack of security headers and modern TLS protocols weakens the overall security posture. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is publicly available, which may impact transparency and readiness. The presence of ISO/IEC 27001:2013 certification for their datacenter operations suggests a strong internal security framework, but this is not fully reflected in the website's security configuration. Compliance with GDPR is partially addressed through a privacy policy, but cookie consent mechanisms are missing. Overall, the website requires immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues and enhancement of security headers to improve trust and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire website.
  2. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and enhance privacy transparency.
  5. Publish an incident response and vulnerability disclosure policy to improve security transparency and customer trust.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Internet Port Hamburg GmbH
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Contao Open Source CMS platform, utilizing JavaScript libraries including jQuery, Swipe.js, Colorbox, and Tablesorter for UI and interactivity. The site has moderate load times (~5 seconds) and a reasonable number of resources (36). Mobile optimization is good with responsive design elements. SEO is basic with meta tags and alternate language links present. However, the lack of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols is a significant technical debt and security risk. DNS configuration is solid with valid SPF and DMARC records, and no DNSSEC or CAA records. The hosting environment appears self-managed or dedicated, with IP addresses in German ranges. Performance could be improved by optimizing resource loading and enabling caching mechanisms. Accessibility is basic but could be enhanced with ARIA roles and better keyboard navigation support.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 69/100Medium31 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with iphh.net. 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 iphh.net.

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.