Skip to main content

Security report for keyingress.de

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

61/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website keyingress.de is minimalistic and primarily serves as a redirect to www.ingress.de. There is no substantive content, metadata, or business information present on the site. The lack of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies and absence of contact details indicate a very low level of digital maturity and business transparency. Technically, the site uses basic HTML with inline CSS and no detectable scripts or frameworks. The hosting appears to be managed via domaincontrol.com name servers, a common DNS provider. Security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS and security headers, and no evidence of compliance with GDPR or other regulations is found. Overall, the site presents a low trust profile and minimal business credibility.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of keyingress.de. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
15/ 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

7 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.

    • Critical

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • 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

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching keyingress.de

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. 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
72
Security headers
45
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
15
Average
61

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

Due to the lack of content and business information, it is not possible to determine the company's market position, business model, or key services. The site does not provide any contact or legal information, making it difficult to assess the company's legitimacy or sector. The redirect to ingress.de suggests the main business presence may be on that domain. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The minimalistic approach and lack of branding consistency further limit business intelligence insights.

Security posture

The security posture is poor. There is no indication of HTTPS usage or security headers, which are critical for protecting user data and ensuring secure communications. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is present. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR requirements. No security frameworks or certifications are mentioned. The site does not collect user data via forms or scripts, which reduces exposure but also limits functionality. Overall, the site is vulnerable to interception and lacks basic security hygiene.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure communications.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Provide clear contact information and business details to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Enhance website content with meaningful information about the business and services.
  5. Incorporate security headers and consider adopting recognized security frameworks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal and acts as a redirect link to another domain (www.ingress.de).
  2. No metadata beyond basic charset and viewport tags; no SEO or social media tags.
  3. No forms, no contact information, no privacy or cookie policies found.
  4. No scripts or external libraries detected.
  5. No security headers or HTTPS information available from provided data.
  6. WHOIS data is minimal with only domain status and name servers.
  7. Website appears to be a placeholder or redirect page rather than a full business site.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built with minimal HTML and inline CSS, with no external scripts or frameworks detected. The lack of meta tags beyond charset and viewport limits SEO and social media integration. Hosting is via domaincontrol.com name servers, but no further hosting details are available. Performance is likely moderate due to minimal content. Mobile optimization is basic, with a full viewport link element but no responsive navigation or accessibility features. The site lacks modern technical implementations such as structured data, analytics, or content management systems. Technical debt is low due to simplicity but modernization is needed for security and usability.
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. 61/100Medium34 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with keyingress.de. 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 keyingress.de.

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.