Skip to main content

Security report for lrz.de

Leibniz-Rechenzentrum der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften · Education · Germany

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Leibniz-Rechenzentrum (LRZ) is a large, well-established IT service provider dedicated to supporting scientific research and education primarily in Bavaria, Germany. It offers a broad portfolio of advanced IT services including supercomputing, AI and Big Data infrastructure, networking via the Munich Science Network (MWN), IT security, cloud storage, and consulting. The LRZ is positioned as a key regional player with strong partnerships and a focus on cutting-edge technologies. Technically, the website is built on TYPO3 CMS and demonstrates good content quality, navigation, and accessibility, though performance is moderate. Security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of modern TLS protocols, which is a critical issue. Privacy compliance is adequate with a clear privacy policy but lacks cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent improvements in security to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

5 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 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. 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 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 lrz.de

This scan found 21 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
50
Security headers
40
Email security
60
DNS health
90
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
60

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

LRZ operates as an essential entity within the education and technology sectors, serving universities, research institutions, and students. Its business model revolves around providing IT infrastructure and services tailored to scientific computing needs, including HPC, cloud, and networking. The organization benefits from partnerships with academic and governmental bodies, such as the Hightech Agenda Bayern and NHR@FAU. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive service descriptions and user support channels. Growth indicators include active research projects and training offerings. The partnership ecosystem is strong, with linked domains indicating collaboration with regional HPC centers and funding agencies. Strategic observations suggest LRZ is focused on innovation and expanding its service portfolio to maintain leadership in scientific IT services.

Security posture

The current security maturity level of LRZ's website is low due to the lack of HTTPS enforcement and absence of a valid SSL certificate, exposing users to potential data interception risks. No security headers such as HSTS, Content Security Policy, or X-Frame-Options are detected, increasing vulnerability to common web attacks. The site does not implement OCSP stapling or session resumption, which could improve security and performance. There is no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which may hinder timely handling of security incidents. While no critical vulnerabilities like malware or phishing indicators are found, the missing HTTPS is a critical compliance gap, especially under GDPR and NIS2 regulations. Data protection practices appear basic, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not evident from the site content.

Recommendations

  1. Urgently install and configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement security headers including HSTS, Content Security Policy, and X-Frame-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner and explicit cookie policy to comply with GDPR requirements.
  4. Publish a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve transparency and incident handling.
  5. Enhance incident response information and provide dedicated security contact channels to strengthen security culture.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The LRZ website is built on TYPO3 CMS, a robust and widely used content management system, indicating a mature technical infrastructure. The site uses modern HTML5 and CSS3 standards with JavaScript for interactivity. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 5 seconds and a page size of about 94 KB, which is acceptable but could be optimized. Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, with responsive design and accessibility features like skip links and ARIA labels. SEO is well addressed with proper meta tags and structured navigation. However, the lack of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols is a significant technical risk. The DNS setup is standard with multiple authoritative nameservers but lacks DNSSEC. SPF records are valid, supporting email security. Overall, the technical stack is solid but requires security upgrades to reduce operational risks.
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 lrz.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 lrz.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.