Skip to main content

Security report for manuel-metz.de

RA Manuel Metz · Other · Germany

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

26/100

Risk levelHigh

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

RA Manuel Metz operates a small legal practice based in Germany, providing professional legal services with a focus on client engagement, reliability, and expertise. The website presents clear contact information and a straightforward description of services aimed at individuals seeking legal counsel. The business is positioned as a local/regional legal service provider with a simple, content-focused web presence. Technically, the website is built on a basic Apache server with static HTML and CSS, lacking modern CMS or frameworks. Performance data is minimal, indicating slow loading or unmeasured performance. The site is not optimized for mobile or accessibility beyond basic levels and lacks advanced SEO features. From a security perspective, the website does not implement HTTPS, exposing visitors to risks. There are no advanced security headers or mechanisms such as HSTS or CSP. Privacy compliance is minimal, with a basic privacy policy present but no cookie consent or GDPR compliance indicators. No incident response or security policy information is available, indicating a low security maturity level. Overall, the website is functional but has critical security shortcomings that reduce trustworthiness and user safety. Strategic improvements in SSL implementation, security headers, and privacy compliance are recommended to enhance the site's professionalism and protect users.

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

9 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 manuel-metz.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. 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
70
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
0
Average
26

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 sole legal practitioner or small law office serving clients in Germany. Its market positioning is local with no indication of broader partnerships or subsidiaries. The business model is service-based, relying on direct client engagement and legal expertise. Revenue streams likely come from client consultations and legal representation. The website does not indicate growth initiatives or digital marketing strategies. The partnership ecosystem is minimal, with hosting and email services provided by agenturserver.de. The business maintains a consistent brand image but lacks digital maturity and advanced online presence.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the absence of HTTPS and valid SSL certificates, which is a critical vulnerability. The lack of security headers and no HSTS implementation further expose the site to common web attacks. No evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies exists. Data protection practices are minimal, with only a basic privacy policy and no cookie consent mechanism. The site does not demonstrate readiness for GDPR or other compliance frameworks. Overall, the security culture appears immature, posing risks to both the business and its clients.

Recommendations

  1. Implement a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and protect user data.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to mitigate common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Introduce a cookie consent mechanism and enhance the privacy policy to demonstrate GDPR compliance.
  4. Develop and publish a security policy and incident response plan to improve security posture and client trust.
  5. Consider modernizing the website with responsive design and accessibility improvements to enhance user experience.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on an Apache server with static HTML and CSS files, lacking modern web frameworks or CMS platforms. The DNS setup uses agenturserver.de for mail exchange and domaincontrol.com for nameservers, indicating third-party hosting and domain management. Performance metrics are missing or zero, suggesting slow or unmeasured load times. No JavaScript libraries or analytics tools are detected, indicating minimal technical complexity. The absence of HTTPS and modern security protocols is a significant technical risk. The site would benefit from modernization including SSL implementation, performance optimization, and adoption of accessibility standards.
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 manuel-metz.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 manuel-metz.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.