Skip to main content

Security report for meinlcoffee.com

Julius Meinl · Hospitality · Austria

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

45/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Julius Meinl is a well-established premium coffee and tea company with a rich heritage dating back to 1862. The company operates globally, targeting both business customers such as coffee houses, hotels, and restaurants, as well as home consumers. Their offerings include high-quality coffee and tea products, professional equipment, and tailored services including training. The website reflects a strong brand identity consistent with their market position as a premium hospitality supplier. Technically, the site is built on Microsoft IIS with ASP.NET and Kentico CMS, hosted on Azure, and integrates modern analytics and marketing tools. However, the site suffers from a critical security issue due to an invalid SSL certificate, resulting in no HTTPS availability, which significantly impacts user trust and security posture. Privacy compliance is partial, with no visible cookie consent mechanism despite tracking scripts. Contact information is primarily via forms and social media, with no explicit emails or phone numbers published. Overall, the site is professional and content-rich but requires urgent security improvements.

Scanned

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

7 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

      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"

    • 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 meinlcoffee.com

This scan found 19 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
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
45

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

Julius Meinl leverages its long-standing heritage and premium positioning to serve a diverse customer base in the hospitality sector and home consumers. Their business model combines product sales with value-added services such as training and equipment support, enhancing customer loyalty and differentiation. The company maintains a consistent brand message emphasizing quality, tradition, and Viennese Coffee House Culture. Their digital presence is supported by a modern CMS and cloud hosting, enabling scalability and integration with analytics platforms. The absence of explicit security and incident response policies online suggests an area for maturity improvement. The company’s social media presence and integrity line link indicate engagement with transparency and corporate responsibility.

Security posture

The website’s security posture is weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate, resulting in no HTTPS support. This exposes users to potential data interception risks and undermines trust. The absence of HSTS, OCSP stapling, and modern TLS protocols further weakens the security configuration. While no known vulnerabilities or malware are detected, the lack of published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms indicates limited transparency and preparedness. The site does implement a Content-Security-Policy header to upgrade insecure requests, which is a positive practice. Overall, the security maturity is low and requires immediate remediation to protect user data and comply with best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce secure connections.
  3. Enable OCSP stapling and modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or 1.3) for improved security and performance.
  4. Add comprehensive cookie consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR and enhance privacy transparency.
  5. Publish clear security policies, incident response procedures, and vulnerability disclosure information to build trust and readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Microsoft IIS 10.0 with ASP.NET technology and uses Kentico CMS, indicating a mature enterprise-grade infrastructure. Hosting on Microsoft Azure DNS and integration with Google Maps API and Microsoft Application Insights shows modern cloud and analytics adoption. However, performance metrics are missing or zero, suggesting potential monitoring gaps. The site is mobile optimized with good accessibility features such as ARIA labels and skip links. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The invalid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS are critical technical deficiencies. The site uses Google Tag Manager and Application Insights for tracking, but lacks visible cookie consent banners. Overall, the technical stack is solid but requires security and performance monitoring improvements.
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 meinlcoffee.com. 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 meinlcoffee.com.

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.