Skip to main content

Security report for kunde24.de

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website kunde24.de presents a minimalistic login interface with no publicly accessible content or business information. The absence of privacy policies, contact details, or terms of service limits transparency and user trust. Technically, the site relies on outdated JavaScript libraries such as jQuery 1.3.2, which introduces security vulnerabilities. There is no visible enforcement of HTTPS or security headers, which further weakens the security posture. The domain WHOIS data is heavily redacted due to DENIC policies, providing no registrar, creation, or expiry dates, which complicates trust assessment. Overall, the site appears to be a small-scale or internal service portal with limited external exposure or business presence.

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

8 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

  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 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 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 kunde24.de

This scan found 24 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
82
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
60

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 public content, company information, or contact details, it is not possible to ascertain the market positioning, business model, or target audience of kunde24.de. The site appears to serve as a login gateway, possibly for a private or internal system. No partnerships, certifications, or business ecosystem details are available. The absence of marketing or analytics tools suggests minimal digital marketing efforts or external engagement.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak. The use of an outdated jQuery version exposes the site to known vulnerabilities. There is no evidence of HTTPS enforcement or security headers, which are critical for protecting user data, especially on login forms. The login form lacks visible anti-CSRF tokens or CAPTCHA mechanisms, increasing risk of automated attacks. No incident response or security policies are published. The domain WHOIS data is minimal and does not provide registrant transparency, which may be a concern for trust. Overall, the site requires significant security improvements to protect user credentials and comply with best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade all JavaScript libraries to current, supported versions to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL/TLS certificates and enforce secure connections site-wide.
  3. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Publish privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and improve user trust.
  5. Provide clear contact information and business details to enhance credibility and compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.3.2, JavaScript
Performance
slow
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100

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 is a minimal login page with no public content or business information
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
  3. No contact information or social media links present
  4. Uses outdated JavaScript libraries
  5. No visible HTTPS enforcement or security headers in provided data
  6. No analytics or advertising scripts detected
  7. No structured data or metadata beyond basic HTML title and charset
  8. No external links or partner domains found
  9. Content is minimal and does not provide business context
  10. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses legacy JavaScript libraries (jQuery 1.3.2) and basic HTML with ISO-8859-1 charset. There is no evidence of modern frameworks, CMS, or responsive design. The site loads scripts locally from /jsc/ directory, indicating self-hosted assets. Performance is likely slow due to outdated tech and lack of optimization. No SEO or accessibility features are detected. Hosting provider and infrastructure details are not disclosed. The site lacks modern technical standards and requires modernization to improve performance, security, and 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

Reviews of this site

Share your experience with kunde24.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 kunde24.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.