Skip to main content

Security report for lutherweg1521.de

Lutherweg in Hessen e.V. · Other · Germany

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Lutherweg in Hessen e.V. is a small non-profit association dedicated to promoting pilgrimage and hiking along the Lutherweg1521 route between Worms and Wartburg, focusing on cultural heritage related to Martin Luther. The website serves as an informational hub offering route details, pilgrim accommodations, events, and ordering services for pilgrimage-related items. The target audience includes pilgrims, hikers, and cultural tourists interested in religious and historical trails in Germany. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with standard web technologies including JavaScript and CSS, and it is hosted on servers using rzone.de name servers. The site is mobile-optimized with good navigation and content relevance, though it lacks some advanced technical frameworks or analytics integrations. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and no visible vulnerabilities, but it lacks security headers and formal security policies. Privacy compliance is mostly met with a comprehensive privacy policy, but no cookie consent mechanism is present. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professional, serving its niche well without evident security or compliance risks.

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

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

    • 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 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. 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

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

Keep watching lutherweg1521.de

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
75
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
28
Average
55

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 association operates in the cultural and pilgrimage tourism sector, targeting a niche market of religious and hiking enthusiasts. Its business model is non-commercial, focusing on community engagement, sponsorship, and providing informational and ordering services. The website reflects a consistent brand identity and offers clear contact channels, enhancing credibility. The lack of extensive marketing or analytics tools suggests a focus on organic community growth rather than commercial expansion. Partnerships or subsidiaries are not evident, indicating a standalone operation. The association's market position is stable within its niche, leveraging historical and cultural significance to attract visitors.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with HTTPS enforced and no exposed sensitive data. However, it lacks several security best practices such as security headers (CSP, HSTS), a published security policy, and incident response contacts. There is no evidence of vulnerability disclosure mechanisms or security.txt files. Forms are minimal and appear secure with required fields, but no advanced protections like CAPTCHA or input sanitization details are visible. GDPR compliance is supported by a privacy policy but missing cookie consent mechanisms. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small non-profit informational site but could be improved to enhance trust and resilience.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection to harden the site against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with GDPR cookie regulations and improve user transparency.
  3. Publish a formal security policy and incident response plan on the website to demonstrate security governance and readiness.
  4. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance privacy compliance by auditing data collection and retention practices, and clearly communicating these to users.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Lutherweg in Hessen e.V.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Lutherweg in Hessen e.V.
Description
Auf den Spuren Martin Luthers. Pilgern und wandern zwischen Worms und Wartburg.
Key services
Information about Lutherweg1521 pilgrimage route, Pilger-Herbergen (pilgrim hostels) listings, Event announcements, Bestellservice (ordering service) for pilgrimage-related items, Community and sponsorship engagement
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, jQuery (implied by vendor.js), Owl Carousel, SVG graphics
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • Secure forms with required fields

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

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 and not blocked by WAF or security mechanisms.
  2. Content is in German and focused on cultural pilgrimage related to Martin Luther.
  3. No privacy or cookie banner detected despite GDPR-relevant content.
  4. Contact information is clearly provided with email, phone, and physical address.
  5. No security.txt or explicit security policy found.
  6. No analytics or tracking scripts detected in provided HTML.
  7. Website uses WordPress CMS with common JS libraries and CSS.
  8. No advertising or affiliate marketing detected.
  9. Good mobile optimization and navigation clarity.
  10. No adult or questionable content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with a standard tech stack including HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript, and common libraries such as Owl Carousel. The hosting environment uses rzone.de name servers, likely associated with 1&1 IONOS. The site is mobile responsive and uses SVG graphics for visual appeal. Performance is moderate with no evident heavy scripts or slow-loading elements. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured navigation. Accessibility is basic but present with some ARIA and semantic HTML elements. There is no evidence of advanced frameworks or platforms beyond WordPress. The technical implementation is solid for a small informational site but could benefit from modern security and privacy enhancements.
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 lutherweg1521.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 lutherweg1521.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.