Skip to main content

Security report for jameshardie.eu

James Hardie Europe GmbH · Manufacturing · Germany

Medium risk. 2 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

James Hardie Europe GmbH is a leading manufacturer and marketer of fiber cement cladding and fiber gypsum products in Europe, with a strong market position as the world’s number one producer in its sector. The company offers a range of high-performance building materials including Hardie® Plank and Hardie® Panel products, emphasizing durability, fire protection, and sustainability. Their operations span multiple continents with thousands of employees and several R&D and manufacturing sites. The website reflects a mature digital presence built on ASP.NET Kentico CMS, with modern tracking and cookie consent mechanisms in place. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, though some security headers and explicit policies could be improved. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-structured, supporting the company’s strong brand and market leadership.

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

2 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 SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching jameshardie.eu

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
65
Security headers
65
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
74

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 jameshardie.eu, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for jameshardie.eu right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Brand lookalikes

Add-on

Domains that imitate jameshardie.eu and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.

Tracked
1
Registered
1
Resolving
1
High or critical
0

Last checked 2026-06-20

Masked preview

  • ja••••••.die.euLowsubdomain

See the full lookalike list

A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of jameshardie.eu with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.

Select it in the checkout above.

Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

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 targets architects, builders, and construction professionals, offering innovative fiber cement and gypsum fiber products. Their business model focuses on manufacturing and distributing high-quality building materials with a strong emphasis on sustainability and fire safety. The website highlights their global footprint and subsidiary brands such as fermacell® and Aestuver®, indicating a diversified product portfolio and market reach. The presence of multiple country-specific domains and social media channels supports a broad European market engagement. The company’s competitive advantage lies in product innovation, sustainability certifications, and a well-established brand reputation.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a solid security foundation with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms implemented. However, the absence of visible security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and lack of published incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies suggest areas for improvement. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The lack of a security.txt file or dedicated security contact channels limits transparency for security researchers. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and publishing clear security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and verify security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response page to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Create and maintain a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Consider adding direct company contact emails and phone numbers for customer support and security reporting to improve trust and accessibility.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking tools to ensure compliance with privacy regulations and minimize user tracking.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
James Hardie Europe GmbH
Description
James Hardie Europe GmbH is a leading manufacturer and marketer of fiber cement cladding and fiber gypsum products in Europe. They offer products such as Hardie® Plank and Hardie® Panel, designed for durability, fire protection, and sustainability. The company operates multiple R&D centers and manufacturing sites, employing over 5400 people across three continents.
Key services
Fiber cement cladding products, Architectural panels, Plank products, Technical support and downloads, Sustainability consulting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
ASP.NET WebForms, JavaScript, Google Tag Manager, OneTrust Cookie Consent
Frameworks
ASP.NET
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Marketing tools
OneTrust Cookie Consent
Transparency
good

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 WHOIS data available publicly due to EURid privacy policy.
  3. Strong branding and consistent corporate identity.
  4. Cookie consent implemented via OneTrust.
  5. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on main pages; contact via form only.
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies published.
  7. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page found.
  8. Social media presence on major platforms.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on ASP.NET WebForms with Kentico CMS, leveraging JavaScript libraries and Google Tag Manager for analytics and marketing. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO practices including meta tags and Open Graph data. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement by optimizing scripts and images. Accessibility is basic but could be enhanced with ARIA roles and better keyboard navigation support. The technical stack is modern enough for current needs but shows some legacy elements typical of ASP.NET WebForms. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. Overall, the technical infrastructure supports a professional and functional user experience.
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. 78/100Low26 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with jameshardie.eu. 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 jameshardie.eu.

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.