Skip to main content

Security report for lepelican-asbl.be

Le Pelican · Non-profit · Belgium

Medium risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Le Pelican is a Belgian non-profit organization founded in 2009, providing support services for individuals facing problematic consumption of alcohol, licit and illicit drugs, and gambling, as well as their families and social circles. The organization offers psycho-social accompaniment, online help, group discussions, prevention, and training services. The website is professionally designed using WordPress.com hosting with Jetpack and Gutenberg technologies, ensuring a good user experience and mobile optimization. Contact information and legal policies are clearly presented, enhancing trust and transparency. Technically, the site leverages modern web technologies including Google Fonts and Facebook SDK, hosted on a secure WordPress.com platform with HTTPS enforced and standard security headers likely in place. Performance is moderate with good SEO and basic accessibility features. Privacy compliance is addressed with GDPR-aligned privacy and cookie policies, including a consent mechanism. Security posture is solid with no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data, though explicit security policies and incident response contacts are absent. The domain registration is consistent and legitimate, supporting the organization's credibility. Overall, the website is trustworthy, professional, and serves a mature audience concerned with addiction and related social issues. Strategic recommendations include adding explicit security and incident response policies, implementing vulnerability disclosure mechanisms, enhancing accessibility, and maintaining regular security reviews to sustain trust and compliance.

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

9 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 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. 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 lepelican-asbl.be

This scan found 23 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
42
Security headers
30
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
58

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

Le Pelican operates as a small-sized non-profit entity focused on addiction support within Belgium. Its market position is localized with a clear target audience comprising individuals with substance and gambling issues and their entourage. The business model centers on providing psycho-social services and training, likely funded through public or private grants and partnerships. The organization maintains partnerships with related support sites and community commissions, enhancing its service ecosystem. The website content and structure reflect a stable operation with consistent branding and professional communication. Growth indicators are not explicit but the long domain age and comprehensive service offerings suggest established presence. The partnership ecosystem includes recognized local organizations, reinforcing credibility.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enforced and standard security headers inferred from WordPress.com hosting. No exposed credentials or sensitive data were found in the HTML content. The use of trusted third-party scripts like Jetpack and Facebook SDK is noted, with no known vulnerable libraries detected. However, the absence of explicit security policies, incident response information, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates room for improvement in security transparency and readiness. Privacy compliance is well addressed with GDPR-aligned policies and cookie consent. Overall, the security posture is good but could be enhanced by formalizing security governance documentation and incident handling procedures.

Recommendations

  1. Develop and publish a dedicated security policy page outlining security practices and commitments.
  2. Implement a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting.
  3. Add incident response contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.
  4. Enhance website accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance with standards.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Le Pelican
Description
L'asbl Le Pélican offre des services d'accompagnement pour les personnes ayant une consommation problématique d'alcool, drogues licites ou illicites, ou de jeux d'argent, ainsi que pour leur entourage.
Key services
Consultation, Aide en ligne, Groupes de parole, Prévention, Formations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Jetpack, Gutenberg, Google Fonts, Facebook SDK
Frameworks
WordPress Gutenberg
Platforms
WordPress.com hosting
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of secure third-party scripts

Analytics and tracking

Services
WordPress.com Stats
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
WordPress.com Stats
Marketing tools
Jetpack, Facebook SDK
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is in French and targeted at a Belgian audience.
  3. The site uses WordPress.com hosting and Jetpack plugins.
  4. Clear contact information and policies are provided.
  5. No explicit security or incident response policies found.
  6. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  7. Social media presence limited to Facebook.
  8. No advertising networks detected beyond WordPress.com stats.
  9. The site addresses sensitive topics but maintains a professional tone.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS hosted on WordPress.com, utilizing Jetpack and Gutenberg for content management and presentation. It employs Google Fonts for typography and Facebook SDK for social media integration. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and uses modern CSS and JavaScript assets loaded asynchronously for performance. SEO is supported by proper meta tags including Open Graph and Twitter Cards. Performance is moderate, typical for WordPress.com hosted sites. No critical technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected. Opportunities exist to improve accessibility and implement advanced security headers or Content Security Policy for enhanced protection.
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 lepelican-asbl.be. 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 lepelican-asbl.be.

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.