Skip to main content

Security report for oebb.at

ÖBB · Transportation · Austria

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

74/100

Risk levelMedium

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

ÖBB is Austria's leading transportation and mobility service provider, operating extensive rail and bus networks with a strong emphasis on punctuality and sustainability. The company serves approximately 1.3 million daily travelers and offers a broad range of services including ticketing, travel planning, shared mobility, and business mobility solutions. Their market position is strong, supported by a large workforce and a commitment to renewable energy for their operations. Technically, the website employs modern web technologies such as Stencil.js and Matomo analytics, providing a responsive and accessible user experience with good SEO practices. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS and strong cipher suites, though improvements like enabling HSTS and DNSSEC would enhance protection. Privacy compliance is well addressed with comprehensive policies and GDPR adherence. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-integrated with partner services, reflecting a mature digital presence.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of oebb.at. 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

3 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

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

Keep watching oebb.at

This scan found 18 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
92
Security headers
100
Email security
55
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
18
Average
74

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 oebb.at, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
6,702
Employees
79
Customers
6,326
Third parties
297
Weak passwords
13%

Latest record dated 2026-06-11 · 107 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for oebb.at.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –svn.oebb.at2026-06-11
  • –workspace.oebb.at2026-06-06
  • –access.oebb.at2026-06-06
  • –access.oebb.at2026-06-06
  • –access-test.oebb.at2026-06-02

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)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

ÖBB operates as an essential entity in the transportation sector, focusing on passenger and freight mobility across Austria and Europe. Their business model revolves around providing integrated mobility services, including ticket sales via multiple channels, travel information, and shared mobility options. The company leverages partnerships with entities like City Airport Train and Rail Tours Austria to extend their service offerings. Their target audience includes daily commuters, leisure travelers, business clients, and regional customers. The enterprise scale and extensive service portfolio position ÖBB as a dominant player in the Austrian mobility market. The website content and external links indicate a well-established ecosystem supporting customer engagement and service delivery.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security maturity level with enforced HTTPS using TLS 1.2 and strong cipher suites. SPF and DMARC records are configured, though DMARC policy is set to 'none', which could be tightened for better email security. DNSSEC and CAA records are absent, representing potential areas for improvement. Security headers like HSTS are not enabled, and OCSP stapling is disabled, which could affect SSL performance and security. No known vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure information are not publicly available, indicating a possible gap in transparency. Overall, the security posture is solid but could benefit from enhancements to align with best practices and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS and prevent downgrade attacks.
  2. Implement DNSSEC to protect against DNS spoofing and improve domain security.
  3. Configure a stricter DMARC policy (e.g., quarantine or reject) to enhance email authentication and reduce phishing risks.
  4. Enable OCSP stapling to improve SSL certificate revocation checking performance and security.
  5. Publish a security.txt file and incident response contact information to improve transparency and facilitate vulnerability reporting.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript framework (Stencil.js) for component-based UI, enhancing maintainability and performance. Lazy loading of images and SVG icons optimize load times and visual quality. Matomo analytics is used for user tracking and heatmap session recording, indicating a focus on user behavior analysis. The site is mobile responsive and accessible, with clear navigation and semantic HTML. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 4.2 seconds and a page size of about 1.2 MB, which is acceptable but could be optimized further. No CMS was explicitly detected. The DNS setup includes multiple authoritative name servers but lacks DNSSEC and CAA records. SSL configuration supports TLS 1.2 with strong cipher suites but lacks TLS 1.3 support and advanced features like OCSP stapling and session resumption.
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. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with oebb.at. 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 oebb.at.

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.