Skip to main content

Security report for nordsjaellandshospital.dk

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The analyzed domain security-check.regionh.dk currently serves a minimalistic page that appears to be a security validation or WAF challenge page, as indicated by obfuscated JavaScript and lack of meaningful content. No business or contact information is accessible, and WHOIS data is unavailable, suggesting either privacy protection or an unregistered domain. The technical infrastructure shows use of JavaScript but lacks visible frameworks or CMS details. Security posture is weak due to absence of security headers and policies, and privacy compliance is not demonstrated. Overall, the site is inaccessible for meaningful analysis, resulting in a low trust and security score.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 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

8 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 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

  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 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 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 nordsjaellandshospital.dk

This scan found 22 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
52
Security headers
55
Email security
80
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
65

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

Due to the lack of accessible content and metadata, no business intelligence can be derived. There are no indications of market positioning, business model, or services. The domain appears to be a technical endpoint for security validation rather than a public-facing business site.

Security posture

The site exhibits a low security maturity level with no visible security headers or policies. The presence of obfuscated JavaScript suggests a security mechanism is in place, but it blocks content access, limiting transparency. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The absence of WHOIS data further reduces trust. Compliance with GDPR or other regulations cannot be confirmed.

Recommendations

  1. Ensure the website content is accessible to legitimate users and search engines by adjusting WAF or security challenge settings.
  2. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies to demonstrate compliance with data protection regulations.
  3. Provide visible contact information and security incident response details to enhance trust.
  4. Implement and expose security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security.
  5. Register and maintain accurate WHOIS information to improve domain legitimacy and trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page content is minimal and contains obfuscated JavaScript typical of a security check or WAF challenge page. No meaningful content or metadata is accessible. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Performance
moderate
Mobile
poor
Accessibility
poor
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
25/100

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website content is inaccessible or blocked by a security mechanism.
  2. No visible metadata, forms, or business information present.
  3. No contact information or policies found.
  4. Obfuscated JavaScript present indicating a security check or WAF.
  5. WHOIS data is unavailable, indicating possible privacy protection or unregistered domain.
  6. No external links other than the domain itself.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  8. No social media or business identifiers found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses JavaScript with obfuscation typical of security validation scripts. No modern frameworks or CMS details are detectable. The page lacks metadata, forms, or external links. Performance and accessibility cannot be fully assessed due to blocked content. The hosting provider and SSL configuration are unknown. The site would benefit from modernization and improved transparency.
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 nordsjaellandshospital.dk. 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 nordsjaellandshospital.dk.

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.