Skip to main content

Security report for lwfoundation.nl

Lucille Werner Foundation · Non-profit · Netherlands

High risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

46/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Lucille Werner Foundation is a small Dutch non-profit organization dedicated to improving the visibility and inclusion of people with disabilities through media, events, and labor market initiatives. The website reflects this mission with clear content and navigation but lacks critical compliance elements such as privacy and cookie policies. Technically, the site is built on the JouwWeb CMS platform and hosted on Google Cloud infrastructure, but it suffers from an invalid SSL certificate, resulting in no proper HTTPS security. Security headers are partially implemented, and minimal user tracking is done via Plausible Analytics, indicating some privacy awareness. Overall, the security posture is weak due to missing HTTPS and lack of advanced security configurations. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy. Strategic improvements in SSL configuration, privacy compliance, and contact transparency are recommended to enhance trust and security.

Scanned

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

8 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

  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 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"

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

Keep watching lwfoundation.nl

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
40
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
46

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 foundation operates in a niche non-profit sector focused on disability advocacy and inclusion in the Netherlands. Its competitive advantage lies in leveraging media and events to influence public perception positively. The business model is advocacy-driven with no e-commerce or commercial sales. The website targets people with disabilities, businesses interested in inclusivity, and the general public. The organization appears stable with a consistent brand presence since 2006. Partnerships with JouwWeb and Webador platforms support its digital presence. Growth opportunities include expanding digital outreach and formalizing privacy and security policies to build stakeholder trust.

Security posture

The current security maturity is low to moderate. The absence of a valid SSL certificate is a critical vulnerability that undermines user trust and data security. Basic security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Content-Type-Options are present, but important enhancements such as HSTS and OCSP stapling are missing. No evidence of incident response or security policy documentation is found. The site does not collect user data via forms, reducing exposure but also limiting engagement. Compliance with GDPR is not demonstrated through privacy or cookie policies. The foundation should prioritize securing HTTPS, implementing comprehensive privacy policies, and establishing incident response protocols to improve its security posture.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable secure HTTPS connections.
  2. Publish clear and comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and build user trust.
  3. Add explicit contact information including emails and phone numbers to improve transparency and credibility.
  4. Enhance security headers by enabling HSTS, Referrer-Policy, and X-Frame-Options to strengthen protection.
  5. Consider implementing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the JouwWeb CMS platform, utilizing nginx as the web server and hosted on Google Cloud infrastructure. The technology stack includes standard web technologies such as JavaScript and CSS, with fonts served from Google Fonts. Performance data indicates no measurable load time or resource count, suggesting incomplete performance metrics or caching effects. Mobile optimization is basic, with responsive meta tags present but no advanced accessibility features detected. SEO is basic with canonical links and Open Graph tags but lacks rich metadata or structured data beyond basic organization schema. The invalid SSL certificate is a significant technical debt that must be addressed to avoid user trust issues and potential browser warnings.
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 lwfoundation.nl. 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 lwfoundation.nl.

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.