Skip to main content

Security report for linz.at

Stadt Linz · Government · Austria

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

42/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Stadt Linz operates as the official municipal government website for the city of Linz, Austria, providing a broad range of public services, cultural information, and digital resources to residents and visitors. The website is well-structured, professionally designed, and targets citizens seeking administrative services, event information, and city news. It maintains a strong market position as the authoritative source for city-related information and services. Technically, the site runs on Microsoft IIS 10.0 with JavaScript and CSS, integrates Matomo analytics for privacy-conscious tracking, and uses Klaro for cookie consent management. Accessibility and mobile responsiveness are well addressed, ensuring a positive user experience. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support critically undermines the site's security posture, exposing users to potential risks. Security headers are implemented, but without HTTPS, their effectiveness is limited. Privacy policies and GDPR compliance are well documented, and contact information is clearly available. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional but requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and maintain credibility.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of linz.at. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

6 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 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 linz.at

This scan found 17 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
0
Security headers
50
Email security
50
DNS health
50
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
42

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 website serves as a comprehensive digital gateway for the city of Linz, offering services such as digital forms, event calendars, and social engagement channels. Its business model is public sector focused, emphasizing transparency, citizen engagement, and service delivery. The site leverages partnerships with local tourism and event platforms, enhancing its ecosystem. The presence of a chatbot and multiple social media integrations indicates a commitment to modern communication channels. The lack of SSL may impact user trust and engagement negatively if not addressed. The site’s large scale and official status suggest significant operational resources and a stable market position within the government sector.

Security posture

The security posture is currently weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is a critical vulnerability for any modern website, especially one handling citizen data. While security headers like X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and a Content Security Policy in report-only mode are present, their benefits are diminished without encrypted transport. No incident response or security policy documentation is publicly available, indicating potential gaps in transparency and preparedness. The site uses privacy-respecting analytics and consent management, reflecting good privacy practices. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS configuration is essential to improve security and compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Acquire and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and disable insecure protocols.
  3. Configure HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload flags after SSL deployment.
  4. Transition Content Security Policy from report-only to enforce mode to mitigate XSS risks.
  5. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance transparency.
  6. Continue leveraging privacy-friendly analytics and maintain GDPR compliance with clear cookie consent.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Microsoft IIS 10.0 and uses standard web technologies including HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. It integrates third-party libraries and CDNs such as cdnjs.cloudflare.com and unpkg.com. The site uses Matomo analytics configured to disable cookies, enhancing privacy. Klaro is used for cookie consent management, indicating compliance with privacy regulations. The site is mobile optimized and accessible, with ARIA roles and screen reader support evident. Performance metrics are not provided, but the site uses lazy loading for images and asynchronous script loading, suggesting moderate to good performance. The absence of SSL is a major technical risk. No CMS or hosting provider details are explicitly detected. The site structure and navigation are clear and user-friendly.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 77/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with linz.at. 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 linz.at.

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.