Skip to main content

Security report for nextresearch.org

Next Research GmbH · Healthcare · Austria

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Next Research GmbH is a specialized contract research organization (CRO) based in Austria, focusing on clinical research, scientific consulting, and market analytics primarily in the healthcare sector, especially interventional radiology. The company leverages a decade of experience and strong ties to the CIRSE medical society to deliver tailored research services. Their website presents a professional image with comprehensive service descriptions, a detailed team section, and clear contact options including direct scheduling links. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern plugins for cookie consent and analytics, but suffers from a critical lack of a valid SSL certificate, impacting security and trust. Privacy policies are thorough and GDPR compliant, with user-friendly cookie consent mechanisms and opt-out options for analytics tracking. Overall, the business appears credible and well-positioned in its niche, but the absence of HTTPS is a significant security gap.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 100 · Medium
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

5 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 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';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching nextresearch.org

This scan found 21 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
50
Security headers
15
Email security
85
DNS health
80
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
58
Average
51

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 company operates in a niche healthcare research market, offering customizable clinical and scientific research services. Their business model centers on contract research with a strong emphasis on data quality and regulatory compliance, supported by a global network. The target audience includes medical professionals and healthcare organizations seeking research support. The firm maintains a small but professional team and leverages digital tools like Matomo for analytics and Calendly for appointment scheduling. Their market position is strengthened by affiliation with CIRSE and a focus on minimally invasive therapies. The website content and structure support trust and professionalism, though the lack of a terms of service page and security certificate are areas for improvement.

Security posture

The website currently lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support HTTPS, which is a critical security vulnerability that undermines user trust and data protection. No modern TLS protocols are enabled, and security headers are minimal. However, the site shows awareness of privacy compliance with comprehensive GDPR-aligned policies and cookie consent mechanisms. No known SSL/TLS vulnerabilities or subdomain takeover risks were detected. Incident response and security policy information are absent, indicating room for maturity in security governance. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS configuration is essential to improve the security posture and protect user data.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and 1.3) and disable deprecated versions to enhance encryption security.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce secure connections.
  4. Add comprehensive security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection.
  5. Publish a security.txt file and provide clear incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  6. Maintain and regularly update privacy and cookie policies to reflect evolving regulations and best practices.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Next Research GmbH
VAT number
ATU65260059
Registration number
330801y
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS, using Apache server technology and Cloudflare DNS services. It employs plugins for cookie consent management and image optimization (WebP Express). Analytics are handled primarily via Matomo, with Google Analytics mentioned in policy but no direct script detected. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and uses Bootstrap modals for UI elements. Performance data is missing, but the site appears moderately optimized. The lack of HTTPS and valid SSL certificate is a major technical deficiency. The site uses standard SEO and accessibility practices but could benefit from enhanced accessibility features and performance tuning.
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 nextresearch.org. 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 nextresearch.org.

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.