Skip to main content

Security report for jupiter.no

Jupiter System Partner AS · Technology · Norway

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

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Jupiter System Partner AS is a Norwegian technology company established in 1999, specializing in system development, system architecture, and project management across both private and public sectors. The company offers cloud-based publishing solutions, data integration services, and digital tools for formal meetings, positioning itself as a trusted partner with over two decades of expertise. Their market presence is solidified by membership in the Norwegian Cyber Security Cluster and a professional digital footprint. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies with a clean, responsive design, though no major CMS or third-party frameworks are explicitly detected. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, but lacks advanced security headers and published security policies. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site reflects a credible and professional business with room for improvement in security transparency and privacy practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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 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 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 jupiter.no

This scan found 25 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
30
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
68

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

Jupiter System Partner AS operates primarily in the technology sector serving both government and private clients in Norway. Their business model focuses on delivering bespoke system solutions and consulting services, leveraging long-term expertise in software development and project leadership. The company targets organizations requiring digital transformation and system integration, with key products including a cloud publishing platform and data services linked to Norwegian fisheries. Their competitive advantage lies in their established reputation, specialized knowledge, and membership in a recognized cybersecurity cluster. The company maintains active social media channels to engage with clients and stakeholders. Growth indicators include a diversified product portfolio and sustained market presence since 1999.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to strong security posture with HTTPS enabled and no exposed sensitive information. However, it lacks implementation of key security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could enhance protection against common web attacks. There is no visible vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file, and no dedicated incident response contact information is published. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism detected. The absence of explicit security policies and incident response details suggests room for improvement in security governance and transparency. Overall, the security maturity is adequate for a small technology firm but could be enhanced to meet higher compliance standards such as ISO 27001 or NIST frameworks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to strengthen web security.
  2. Introduce a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve GDPR compliance and user privacy transparency.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information to enhance trust and preparedness.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Regularly review and update privacy and security practices to align with evolving regulations and industry best practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Jupiter System Partner AS
Registration number
947 642 081
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Jupiter System Partner AS
Description
Jupiter System Partner AS ble etablert i 1999, og har siden da løst utfordringer for privat og offentlig sektor. Jupiter har over mange år utviklet ekspertise innen systemutvikling, systemarkitektur og prosjektledelse på tvers av bransjer.
Key services
systemutvikling, systemarkitektur, prosjektledelse, publiseringsløsning for offentlige dokumenter, tjeneste for seddeldata fra Norges Råfisklag, digitalt verktøy for formelle møter
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript (ES Modules), CSS, HTML5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced (implied by https URL)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content
  2. No forms detected on main page; contact via email and phone
  3. Social media presence on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube
  4. No cookie consent banner or explicit cookie policy found
  5. No terms of service page detected
  6. No explicit security or incident response policies published
  7. Good branding and consistent design
  8. No advertising or tracking scripts detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using modern web standards including ES modules for JavaScript and CSS for styling, indicating a contemporary frontend approach. No major CMS or third-party frameworks are explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or lightweight framework. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation clarity and professional design quality. Performance is moderate, with video content and multiple images that may impact load times but are optimized for user experience. Accessibility features are basic but present. There is no evidence of technical debt or outdated technologies, but opportunities exist to enhance SEO and accessibility further. Hosting provider details are not disclosed, and no CDN or cloud provider is explicitly identified.
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 jupiter.no. 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 jupiter.no.

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.