Skip to main content

Security report for lunckelaw.de

LUNCKE LAW · Real Estate · Germany

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

LUNCKE LAW is a specialized legal and notarial services provider based in Offenbach am Main and Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The firm focuses on construction law, real estate law, and administrative law, led by Notarin and Rechtsanwältin Leona Luncke LL.M., who brings extensive experience and professional expertise. The website presents a professional image with clear service offerings targeted at clients in the Rhein-Main region seeking legal and notarial assistance. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern themes and SEO plugins, offering good mobile optimization and moderate performance. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enabled and no visible vulnerabilities, though improvements are recommended in security headers and privacy compliance, particularly cookie consent. Overall, the site is trustworthy and well-positioned in its niche, but could enhance compliance and security transparency.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 100 · High
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 Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  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';…

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

Keep watching lunckelaw.de

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. 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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
28
Average
63

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 business operates as a small, boutique law firm specializing in real estate and construction law within Germany's Rhein-Main area. Its competitive advantage lies in the combined notarial and legal expertise of its principal, Leona Luncke LL.M., and a strong network including tax advisors. The firm targets property owners, developers, and individuals requiring notarial services. The business model is service-based, relying on personalized legal consultation and document certification. The website supports the firm's market positioning by emphasizing professionalism and specialized knowledge. No parent or subsidiary companies are indicated, and partnerships appear limited to professional networks. Growth potential is tied to regional real estate market dynamics and legal service demand.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options represents a missed opportunity to harden the site against common web attacks. No incident response or security policy information is published, which could hinder trust and preparedness. The lack of a cookie consent mechanism may expose the firm to GDPR compliance risks. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files are present, limiting transparency for security researchers. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small professional services site but would benefit from enhancements in headers, privacy compliance, and incident response readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options to improve site security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to ensure full GDPR compliance.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to enhance trust and preparedness.
  4. Consider creating a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve compliance and user experience for all visitors.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
LUNCKE LAW
Description
LUNCKE LAW offers professional notarial services and specialized legal advice in construction and real estate law in Offenbach am Main and Frankfurt am Main. The firm is led by Notarin and Rechtsanwältin Leona Luncke LL.M., a specialist in administrative law with 18 years of experience. Services include notarial certifications, legal advice on real estate transactions, construction law, and related legal fields, supported by a network including tax advisors.
Key services
Notarial services, Legal advice in construction law, Legal advice in real estate law, Administrative law consultancy, Document certification and notarization
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Yoast SEO plugin, jQuery, Blocksy theme, Page Scroll to ID plugin
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No visible vulnerable libraries

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented and relevant to legal and notarial services.
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie consent banners found, which may affect compliance.
  4. No visible contact emails or phone numbers on main page; contact form is primary contact method.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information present.
  6. Use of modern WordPress theme and SEO plugin indicates moderate technical maturity.
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected, indicating privacy-conscious setup.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using the Blocksy theme and Yoast SEO plugin, indicating a modern and SEO-friendly infrastructure. It uses jQuery and a page scroll plugin for enhanced user experience. The site loads external fonts from Google Fonts and includes optimized images with responsive srcsets. Performance is moderate with no critical errors detected. Mobile optimization is good, with responsive design and viewport meta tags. However, the site lacks advanced security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. Hosting provider details are not explicitly found. Overall, the technical setup is solid for a small professional website but could be improved with enhanced security and privacy features.
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 lunckelaw.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 lunckelaw.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.