Skip to main content

Security report for lf.net

LF.net Netzwerksysteme GmbH · Telecommunications · Germany

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

LF.net Netzwerksysteme GmbH is a German-based full-service Internet Service Provider specializing in network and system services. Their offerings include a redundant internet backbone, own data center, DSL and dial-in platforms, email, firewall, virus protection, and consulting services. The company emphasizes technical independence and administrative competence through memberships in DeNIC and RIPE. The website content is primarily in German and targets business and private internet users in Germany. Technically, the site uses legacy JavaScript libraries and self-hosted infrastructure, with moderate performance and basic mobile optimization. Security posture is moderate with cookie consent implemented but lacks visible HTTPS confirmation and security headers. WHOIS data for the domain www.lf.net is missing, raising concerns about domain registration legitimacy. Overall, the website is professional but could improve technical modernization and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 100 · Medium
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. 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.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

  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';…

  3. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

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

Keep watching lf.net

This scan found 27 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
52
Security headers
15
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention lf.net, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
207
Employees
0
Customers
204
Third parties
3
Weak passwords
14%

4 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for lf.net.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

LF.net operates as a small-sized telecommunications ISP focused on the Stuttgart region and broader Germany. Their competitive advantage lies in owning infrastructure and recognized memberships, enabling them to offer reliable internet and hosting services. The business model centers on providing internet connectivity, hosting, and security services to both business and private customers. The website indicates active communication through newsletters and a support section but lacks visible contact details. No partnerships or subsidiaries are identified from the data. Growth indicators are limited due to sparse public business data. The company maintains a consistent brand presence and moderate trust signals through infrastructure ownership and memberships.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate. The presence of a cookie consent banner and mention of firewall and virus protection services indicate awareness of security and privacy. However, the absence of visible HTTPS confirmation, security headers, and published security or incident response policies suggests gaps in security best practices. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the content. Compliance with GDPR is implied through the privacy policy and cookie consent but not explicitly detailed. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not publicly visible. Overall, the security posture requires enhancement to meet modern standards and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and strong cipher suites.
  2. Add comprehensive security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Modernize JavaScript libraries and improve mobile responsiveness and accessibility to enhance user experience and security.
  4. Publish explicit security policies, incident response procedures, and vulnerability disclosure guidelines to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Verify and update WHOIS domain registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and reduce suspicion.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
LF.net Netzwerksysteme GmbH
Description
Die LF.net Netzwerksysteme GmbH ist ein full-service Internetprovider und Dienstleister im System- und Netzwerkbereich. Sie betreiben ein redundantes Internet-Backbone, eigenes Rechenzentrum und bundesweite DSL- und Dialin-Plattform. Mitgliedschaften in DeNIC und RIPE unterstreichen administrative Leistungsfähigkeit und Unabhängigkeit.
Key services
Internet Backbone, Rechenzentrum (Data Center), DSL and Dial-in Access, Email Services, Firewall and Virus Protection, Consulting and Security, Hosting and Housing
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
FreeBSD, Linux, jQuery 1.4.2, jQuery UI 1.8rc3, Matomo Analytics
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • Use of firewall and viruswall services mentioned

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is in German language targeting German market
  2. No HTTPS information available from provided data
  3. Cookie consent implemented inline
  4. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found in HTML
  5. No social media links detected
  6. Website uses legacy jQuery versions
  7. No structured data (JSON-LD or Open Graph) found
  8. WHOIS data missing, domain may be unregistered or privacy protected
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on legacy technologies including jQuery 1.4.2 and jQuery UI 1.8rc3, which are outdated and may pose security risks. The use of Matomo analytics indicates a preference for privacy-respecting tracking. The site is likely self-hosted in their own data center, consistent with their business description. Performance is moderate with basic SEO and accessibility features. The HTML structure is valid but lacks modern responsive design elements. There is no evidence of a CMS or modern web frameworks. Technical debt is present due to outdated libraries and missing security enhancements. Opportunities exist to modernize the tech stack, improve performance, and enhance security configurations to better support business operations.
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 lf.net. 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 lf.net.

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.