Skip to main content

Security report for lernsax.de

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 2 other checks.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.lernsax.de/wws/9.php appears to be a minimal content page primarily embedding an iframe with a session-based PHP URL. There is no visible business branding, metadata, or descriptive content to ascertain the company's market position or services. The technical infrastructure includes basic JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and local scripts, hosted on nameservers associated with bringe.net. The site lacks HTTPS information and security headers, indicating a weak security posture. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are present, and no contact or business information is available, limiting trust and compliance evaluation. Overall, the site appears to be an internal or restricted access portal rather than a public-facing business website.

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

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

    • 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • High

      No DMARC record found

      DMARC provides email authentication and reporting

      What to do: Add DMARC record: "v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:dmarc@yourdomain.com"

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

Keep watching lernsax.de

This scan found 16 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
90
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
70

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 absence of business-related content, metadata, or contact information, it is not possible to determine market positioning, competitive advantages, or business model insights. The domain uses nameservers from bringe.net, which may indicate hosting by a third party. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identifiable from the content. The lack of visible business intelligence suggests the site is either under development, restricted, or intended for authenticated users only.

Security posture

The security posture is weak given the lack of HTTPS confirmation, absence of security headers, and no visible privacy or security policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site does not expose sensitive data in the provided HTML, but the minimal content and lack of security best practices reduce confidence in overall security maturity. No known vulnerabilities or malicious indicators were detected in the content.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate to secure user connections.
  2. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  3. Include contact information and incident response channels to improve trust and security readiness.
  4. Enhance technical SEO and accessibility features to improve user experience and discoverability.
  5. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options to mitigate common web attacks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
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 content is minimal and consists mainly of an iframe embedding another PHP page with a long session ID parameter.
  2. No metadata such as title, description, Open Graph tags, or JSON-LD structured data found.
  3. No forms or input fields detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  4. No external links, email addresses, phone numbers, or social media links found in the HTML content.
  5. Scripts used include jQuery and two local JavaScript files (main.js, 9.js).
  6. No security headers or HTTPS information provided; security posture is weak.
  7. WHOIS data is minimal but shows domain status as 'connect' and uses ns1.bringe.net and ns2.bringe.net as nameservers.
  8. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found or linked.
  9. No contact information or business details visible on the page.
  10. No advertising, analytics, or tracking technologies detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses jQuery and custom JavaScript files but lacks modern frameworks or CMS indicators. The HTML is minimal with no meta tags or structured data, limiting SEO and accessibility. Hosting appears to be managed via bringe.net nameservers. Performance is likely moderate given the simple page structure, but mobile optimization and accessibility are basic. The site embeds content via an iframe with a long session ID, which may indicate a portal or session-based application. There is no evidence of analytics or tracking technologies.
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 lernsax.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 lernsax.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.