o.open · Technology · Germany
Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.
o.open is a small German IT service provider specializing in network design, system integration, hosting, and administration of internet and office networks. The company focuses on supporting social and left-wing projects, providing technical expertise and infrastructure services. The website content is professional and targeted at a niche audience within Germany, with references to partner organizations and detailed contact information. The business appears to have been founded in the early 2000s, with a strong community and social orientation. Technically, the website uses standard modern web technologies such as HTML5, CSS3, and vanilla JavaScript with some security-conscious practices like nonce usage in scripts. However, there is no evidence of advanced frameworks or CMS platforms. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile use but lacks comprehensive accessibility and SEO features. Security posture is moderate, with no visible security headers or HTTPS confirmation in the provided data, and no cookie or privacy consent mechanisms detected. From a security perspective, the site does not show signs of blocking or WAF interference, and no vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the content. The WHOIS data is limited due to DENIC privacy policies but shows consistent nameservers under the domain's control. The domain legitimacy is high, though some WHOIS details like creation and expiry dates are not disclosed. Privacy compliance is basic, with GDPR-related documents available but no cookie consent. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professional but could improve its security posture and privacy compliance. Strategic recommendations include implementing HTTPS verification, adding security headers, introducing cookie consent mechanisms, and enhancing mobile and accessibility features to improve user experience and compliance.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
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.
5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements
What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.
SSL certificate uses 384-bit key, which is considered weak
What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 19 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.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. See sample alerts.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
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
Not counted
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.
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
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention oopen.de, from OffSeq Breach.
3 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 oopen.de.
Select it in the checkout above.
Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
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
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with oopen.de. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review oopen.de.