Skip to main content

Security report for media-f.ch

media f · Media · Switzerland

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

Security score

54/100

Risk levelMedium

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

media f is a regional Swiss company operating as both a printing house and an advertising agency, serving local businesses with content production and distribution services. The company is part of the Groupe Saint-Paul and maintains a medium-sized operation with multiple regional branches. Their website reflects a professional presence with clear service descriptions and a focus on regional market needs. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern plugins and integrates Google Analytics for tracking. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS enabled and no obvious vulnerabilities, but lacks published privacy and cookie policies, which impacts compliance. Overall, the website is functional and professional but could improve in privacy transparency and security headers to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 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. 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

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

Keep watching media-f.ch

This scan found 24 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
95
Security headers
25
Email security
65
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
35
Average
54

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

media f holds a key position in the regional media sector, leveraging its dual role in printing and advertising to offer comprehensive services. Its parent company, Groupe Saint-Paul, supports its operations, indicating a stable business foundation. The company targets regional commercial clients, offering offset and digital printing alongside advertising placements across traditional and digital media. The presence of dedicated subdomains for printing and advertising suggests a segmented business model. The website's content and social media presence support a credible and consistent brand image, though the absence of detailed compliance documentation is a gap. The company appears well-positioned for regional growth with a focus on local market expertise.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and standard WordPress security practices but lacks advanced security headers and explicit security policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, which could hinder rapid response to security events. The use of popular plugins like Contact Form 7 and Google Analytics is standard but requires regular updates to mitigate vulnerabilities. The absence of privacy and cookie policies is a compliance risk under GDPR and related regulations. Overall, the security posture is moderate, with room for improvement in transparency and technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to improve GDPR compliance.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  3. Add a security or incident response page with contact information for reporting issues.
  4. Regularly audit and update WordPress plugins and themes to reduce vulnerability risks.
  5. Consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to enhance transparency.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
media f
Description
media f est à la fois une imprimerie et une régie publicitaire. Nous sommes votre partenaire régional privilégié pour la production et la diffusion de contenus.
Key services
printing (offset and digital), addressing and delivery of printed materials, advertising media placement (local and regional, traditional and digital)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.5.7, jQuery 3.7.1, Kadence Blocks plugin, Contact Form 7 plugin, Super Block Slider plugin, Google Analytics (gtag.js)
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security plugins (implied by Contact Form 7 and other plugins)

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. Contact information is limited to phone and contact form; no email addresses publicly listed.
  4. Use of modern WordPress plugins and Google Analytics indicates standard digital marketing practices.
  5. No explicit security policies or incident response information published.
  6. Website content is professional and business-focused with clear service offerings.
  7. No suspicious or malicious indicators detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.5.7 with a modern tech stack including jQuery and Kadence Blocks for layout. It uses Contact Form 7 for forms and integrates Google Analytics via gtag.js for user tracking. The site loads external fonts from Google Fonts and uses a super block slider plugin for UI elements. Performance is moderate with responsive design and basic accessibility features. SEO is supported by All in One SEO plugin with proper meta tags and structured data in JSON-LD format. No major technical debt or outdated libraries were detected, but security headers are missing, and privacy compliance features are absent.
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 media-f.ch. 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 media-f.ch.

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.