Skip to main content

Security report for oerlikon.com

Other · N/a

Low risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

78/100

Risk levelLow

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

The website at www.oerlikon.com currently serves only a default Red Hat Enterprise Linux HTTP server test page, indicating that the actual website content is not deployed or the site is under maintenance. There is no business-related content, branding, or contact information available on the page. The domain WHOIS query returned no registration data, suggesting the domain may not be registered or WHOIS information is withheld, which raises concerns about legitimacy. From a technical perspective, the site runs on a Linux-based server with Apache and NGINX mentioned in the content, but no CMS or modern web technologies are detected. The absence of HTTPS and security headers indicates a poor security posture. No privacy or cookie policies are present, and no analytics or tracking technologies are detected. Security-wise, the site lacks basic protections such as HTTPS, security headers, and does not provide any contact or incident response information. The missing WHOIS data further undermines trust. Overall, the site is not currently functional as a business website and poses significant risks if used in this state. Strategically, it is recommended to register the domain properly, deploy actual business content, implement HTTPS and security best practices, and publish privacy and security policies to improve trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

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.

    • 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

    • 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. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching oerlikon.com

This scan found 16 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
67
Security headers
85
Email security
88
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
78

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.

Brand lookalikes

Add-on

Domains that imitate oerlikon.com and could be used for phishing or spoofed email, tracked in OffSeq Breach.

Tracked
12
Registered
12
Resolving
12
High or critical
0

Last checked 2026-07-05

Masked preview

  • or••••••.comMediumtransposition
  • oe••••••.comMediumhomoglyph
  • oe••••••.comMediumhomoglyph

See the full lookalike list

A one-off add-on that lists up to 20 of the highest-risk lookalikes of oerlikon.com with registration, mail-server, certificate and DNS signals.

Select it in the checkout above.

Lookalike data refreshes continuously. Monitoring on Breach alerts you when a variant is registered, gains a mail server or starts serving HTTPS.

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

No business intelligence can be derived from the current content as it is a generic server test page. There is no information about market positioning, business model, revenue streams, or partnerships. The external links relate only to Red Hat and open source software providers, not to any business operations of Oerlikon.

Security posture

The security posture is very weak. The site lacks HTTPS, security headers, and any form of privacy or security policies. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The missing WHOIS data and default test page content indicate the site is not production-ready and vulnerable to trust and security issues.

Recommendations

  1. Register the domain properly and ensure WHOIS data is accurate and complete.
  2. Deploy actual business content and branding to replace the default server test page.
  3. Implement HTTPS with valid SSL/TLS certificates to secure communications.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Publish privacy, cookie, and security policies to comply with regulations and build trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
This page is a default test page indicating the HTTP server is installed and working properly. No business description available.
Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Apache HTTP Server, NGINX
Platforms
Linux
SEO
poor

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 a default Red Hat Enterprise Linux HTTP server test page.
  2. No actual business content or branding is present.
  3. No contact information, privacy policy, or terms of service found.
  4. No security headers or HTTPS information available.
  5. WHOIS data is missing, indicating domain may not be registered or WHOIS is blocked.
  6. External links point only to Red Hat and related technology sites.
  7. No analytics, tracking, or advertising scripts detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux server running Apache and NGINX. No CMS or advanced web frameworks are detected. The HTML content is minimal and static, indicating no dynamic content or modern frontend technologies. No performance or accessibility optimizations are evident. The site lacks HTTPS and security headers, which are critical technical deficiencies. Overall, the technical implementation is basic and incomplete.
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 oerlikon.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 oerlikon.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.