Skip to main content

Security report for lb-airpark.ch

LB Airpark SA · Transportation · Switzerland

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

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

LB Airpark SA operates a luxury jet park in Sion, Switzerland, targeting affluent private jet owners and operators. The business focuses on providing premium parking and aviation-related services, positioning itself as a niche luxury aviation real estate and service provider. The website reflects a small-sized company with a founding date consistent with the domain registration in 2013. The site content is minimal but professional, with consistent branding and clear navigation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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

7 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 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

    • 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 lb-airpark.ch

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
85
Security headers
25
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
53

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

The company operates in the transportation and real estate sectors, serving a specialized market segment of private aviation clients. The business model centers on luxury service provision, with limited digital presence and no visible e-commerce or direct sales channels on the website. Partnerships include the web design firm komix.fr. The lack of detailed contact information and policies suggests a business relying on direct client relationships rather than broad online engagement.

Security posture

The website uses HTTPS, which is a positive security indicator. However, it lacks essential security headers such as Content Security Policy and HSTS, which are recommended to enhance protection. The use of an outdated jQuery version may expose the site to known vulnerabilities. No privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps with GDPR and other data protection regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, limiting transparency in security management.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to ensure GDPR compliance.
  2. Add standard security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) to improve security posture.
  3. Upgrade JavaScript libraries, especially jQuery, to current secure versions.
  4. Publish clear contact information including emails and phone numbers for customer and security incident reporting.
  5. Consider adding a security.txt file and vulnerability disclosure policy to enhance trust and transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
LB Airpark SA
Description
LB Airpark is a luxury jet park located in Sion, Switzerland, offering premium parking and related services for private jets.
Key services
luxury jet parking, aviation services
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.5.7, jQuery 1.9.1, Google Analytics
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
55/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
good
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found on the site.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly listed on the homepage.
  4. Site uses WordPress CMS with an older jQuery version.
  5. Google Analytics is used for visitor tracking without visible cookie consent.
  6. No security headers detected, which is a security improvement area.
  7. Content is minimal and mostly static with basic navigation.
  8. No forms present to analyze for data collection or security.
  9. Branding is consistent with a professional logo and site title.
  10. No social media links or email addresses found in the HTML content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.5.7 with jQuery 1.9.1, indicating a somewhat outdated JavaScript library usage. The site loads external fonts from Google Fonts and uses Google Analytics for visitor tracking. The HTML structure is valid and includes basic SEO meta tags but lacks Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data. Performance is moderate with no evident optimization for mobile beyond basic CSS. Accessibility features are minimal but present. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified. Overall, the technical implementation is functional but could benefit from modernization and enhanced security practices.
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 lb-airpark.ch. 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 lb-airpark.ch.

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.