Skip to main content

Security report for mediaimpact.de

Media Impact · Media · Germany

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

76/100

Risk levelLow

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

Media Impact is a large German media company specializing in advertising and marketing solutions across print and digital platforms. They offer a comprehensive portfolio including print, digital, video, native, performance, programmatic, and social media advertising, targeting advertisers and brand managers. The company holds a strong market position in Germany with a partnership with Ad Alliance, reaching a large audience. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern SEO and marketing tools integrated, including a GDPR-compliant consent management platform and Tealium tag management. However, the security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of modern TLS protocols, which poses a significant risk. Privacy policies and terms of service are present and comprehensive, supporting GDPR compliance. Overall, the site is professionally designed with good user experience and trust indicators but requires urgent security improvements.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of mediaimpact.de. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

4 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';…

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

Keep watching mediaimpact.de

This scan found 16 issues across 5 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
100
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
76

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention mediaimpact.de, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for mediaimpact.de right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Media Impact operates in the media sector with a business model focused on selling advertising space and marketing services. Their revenue streams likely come from print and digital ad sales, special advertising units, and partnerships. The target customers are advertisers and marketers in Germany. The company leverages partnerships such as Ad Alliance to extend reach. The website content and structure indicate a mature digital presence with marketing automation and consent management tools. Growth indicators include active news and event updates and a broad portfolio of media brands. The company maintains a consistent brand image and engages users via social media channels. No explicit information about founding year or parent company was found.

Security posture

The current security posture shows significant gaps. The website lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS versions, which is a critical vulnerability for data confidentiality and integrity. No HSTS or OCSP stapling is enabled, and DNSSEC is not implemented, increasing exposure to DNS spoofing. While SPF and DMARC records are correctly configured with a reject policy, the absence of CAA records and DNSSEC reduces DNS security. No explicit security policy, incident response, or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The site uses a GDPR-compliant consent management platform, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. Overall, the security maturity is low, and urgent remediation is needed to protect user data and maintain trust.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate supporting TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3 to secure all website traffic.
  2. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS usage.
  3. Implement DNSSEC to protect DNS queries and prevent spoofing attacks.
  4. Add Certification Authority Authorization (CAA) DNS records to restrict certificate issuance to authorized CAs.
  5. Establish and publish a security policy and vulnerability disclosure program to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted behind Akamai CDN and uses NetUse nameservers. It is built on WordPress CMS with Yoast SEO plugin for search optimization. JavaScript libraries include jQuery and plugins for video and consent management (Sourcepoint CMP). Marketing tools include Tealium tag manager and Pardot for marketing automation. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 5 seconds and a page size of about 900 KB. Mobile optimization is good with responsive design. Accessibility is basic but could be improved. The site uses structured data (JSON-LD) for SEO and Open Graph tags for social media integration. Technical risks include missing SSL/TLS and lack of DNS security 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 63/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with mediaimpact.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 mediaimpact.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.