Skip to main content

Security report for ligula.se

Ligula Hospitality Group · Hospitality · Sweden

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

56/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Ligula Hospitality Group is a regional hospitality business operating hotels and restaurants across Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. The company manages multiple hotel brands and offers booking services through an integrated booking engine. Their website reflects a professional presence with a clear focus on hospitality services and regional market coverage. Technically, the website is built on WordPress, leveraging common web technologies such as jQuery and Google Tag Manager, and is hosted with Microsoft Azure DNS services. The site is mobile-optimized and includes SEO best practices, although accessibility features are basic. Security-wise, the site uses HTTPS and integrates cookie consent mechanisms that comply with GDPR, but lacks explicit security headers and published security policies. Overall, the website demonstrates a moderate to good security posture with room for improvement in formal security documentation and header implementation. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
95/ 100 · Low
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

5 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 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';…

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching ligula.se

This scan found 25 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
67
Security headers
20
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
95
Average
56

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 holds a solid position in the hospitality sector within Northern Europe, targeting customers seeking hotel and restaurant services in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany. Their business model centers on operating multiple hotel concepts and providing seamless booking experiences. The use of third-party services like Stripe for payments and Piwik Pro for analytics indicates a mature digital ecosystem. The absence of visible contact details on the homepage suggests a possible focus on online bookings rather than direct customer service via phone or email. The partnership ecosystem includes recognized service providers for payments, analytics, and cookie management, enhancing operational efficiency. Growth potential exists through expanding digital marketing and improving transparency in terms of service and security policies.

Security posture

The website maintains a baseline security posture with HTTPS enabled and a comprehensive cookie consent banner that categorizes cookies by purpose and data processors, reflecting GDPR compliance. However, the lack of visible security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No incident response or security policy pages are published, which may hinder transparency and preparedness. The use of reputable third-party services like Stripe and Cloudflare adds security benefits. No critical vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. To enhance security maturity, the company should implement security headers, publish incident response and security policies, and conduct regular third-party script audits.

Recommendations

  1. Implement security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen browser security.
  2. Publish clear terms of service and security policy pages to improve transparency and compliance.
  3. Establish and disclose an incident response process and contact channels for security issues.
  4. Enhance website accessibility to meet higher compliance standards and improve user experience.
  5. Regularly review and audit third-party scripts and integrations to mitigate supply chain risks.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Ligula Hospitality Group
Description
Ligula Hospitality Group driver verksamhet inom hotell och restaurang i Sverige, Danmark och Tyskland, under ProfilHotels, Good Morning Hotels, Motel L m fl koncept.
Key services
Hotel operations, Restaurant services, Booking engine services
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Piwik Pro, Stripe, Cloudflare DNS, CookieInformation Consent Management
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent with detailed categories
  • Use of secure third-party services (Stripe, Cloudflare)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Piwik Pro
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Adform, DoubleClick
Tracking pixels
Piwik Pro, Facebook Pixel, Google Marketing Platform, Microsoft Bing
Marketing tools
Facebook, Microsoft Bing
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with valid SSL.
  2. Cookie consent banner is comprehensive and GDPR compliant.
  3. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on homepage.
  4. No terms of service or explicit security policy pages found.
  5. Multiple third-party integrations for analytics and marketing.
  6. Website built on WordPress with common libraries like jQuery.
  7. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
  8. WHOIS data supports legitimacy and business continuity.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Google Tag Manager, and integration with analytics and payment platforms. Hosting is supported by Microsoft Azure DNS, indicating reliable infrastructure. Performance is moderate with deferred loading of scripts and optimized CSS. Mobile responsiveness is good, and SEO meta tags are properly implemented. Accessibility is basic, with some focus ring styles and ARIA attributes present but could be improved. The cookie consent mechanism is robust and integrated with third-party consent management services. Technical risks include the absence of security headers and potential dependency on multiple third-party scripts which require ongoing monitoring.
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 ligula.se. 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 ligula.se.

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.