Skip to main content

Security report for omroepmax.nl

Omroep MAX · Media · Netherlands

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

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Omroep MAX is a Dutch public broadcasting association focused on delivering media content, cultural programming, and member-exclusive activities primarily targeting a general audience in the Netherlands. The website serves as a portal for program information, membership services, event reservations, and legal assistance through the MAX Ombudsman. It maintains a strong market position as part of the NPO network, offering trusted and culturally relevant content. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern plugins and frameworks, optimized for accessibility and SEO, and integrates analytics and tracking tools from NPO and Kantar. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and form protections, though some security headers could be enhanced. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear policies and consent mechanisms. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and well-maintained, supporting a medium-sized media organization with a focus on member engagement and cultural outreach.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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. 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 omroepmax.nl

This scan found 26 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
65
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
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

Omroep MAX operates within the Dutch public media sector, leveraging a membership model that includes exclusive events and cultural activities to engage its audience. Its partnerships with NPO and affiliated domains like maxvandaag.nl and maxwinkel.nl strengthen its ecosystem. The business model is non-profit oriented, focusing on community and cultural enrichment rather than commercial revenue. The website reflects a mature digital presence with integrated marketing and analytics tools, supporting growth and audience insights. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a controlled communication channel primarily via web forms. The organization benefits from strong brand consistency and trust signals, including official affiliations and GDPR compliance.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS enforced and Google reCAPTCHA protecting forms against automated abuse. The use of official NPO tracking and analytics scripts indicates trusted third-party integrations. However, the lack of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represents an area for improvement to mitigate risks like clickjacking and MIME sniffing. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. Incident response and security policy documentation are absent, which could be addressed to enhance transparency and preparedness. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a public media website but could be strengthened with additional headers and formal policies.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including CSP, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Publish a formal security policy and incident response contact information on the website.
  3. Regularly audit and update WordPress core and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  4. Enhance form security with server-side validation and monitoring.
  5. Increase transparency on data retention policies related to analytics and user data.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Omroep MAX
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Omroep MAX
Description
Website van omroepvereniging MAX. Bekijk alles over onze programma's en exclusieve ledenactiviteiten!
Key services
Broadcasting TV and radio programs, Organizing member-exclusive activities and events, Providing legal assistance via MAX Ombudsman, Publishing MAX Magazine, Offering membership benefits
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Gravity Forms, jQuery, Yoast SEO, NPO Tag, Google reCAPTCHA v2, Slick Slider
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
Web
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS
  • Google reCAPTCHA for forms
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security and analytics tags from NPO

Analytics and tracking

Services
AT Internet (via NPO Tag), Kantar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
NPO Tag, Kantar
Marketing tools
NPO Tag, Kantar
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
excellent
User experience
excellent
Content relevance
excellent
Navigation
excellent
Professionalism
excellent
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. Content is professionally presented and well-structured.
  3. Strong focus on member engagement and cultural activities.
  4. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices.
  5. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant.
  6. No direct company emails or phone numbers found; contact via form.
  7. Social media presence on major platforms is active.
  8. Security headers could be improved for enhanced protection.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is powered by WordPress CMS with a modern tech stack including jQuery, Gravity Forms, Yoast SEO, and slick slider for UI components. It integrates Google reCAPTCHA v2 for bot protection and uses NPO's proprietary tagging and analytics scripts. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA labels. Performance is moderate, with some reliance on external resources like Google Fonts and third-party scripts. SEO is well handled with meta tags, Open Graph, and JSON-LD structured data. The technical infrastructure supports a medium-sized media organization with room for optimization in security headers and hosting 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 omroepmax.nl. 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 omroepmax.nl.

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.