Skip to main content

Security report for palais-hoertenberg.com

Other · N/a

High risk. 11 critical or high findings in Network security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The website palais-hoertenberg.com is currently inaccessible, returning a 403 Forbidden error page that blocks access to any meaningful content. The domain is newly registered in September 2023 and lacks any visible business or contact information on the landing page. The absence of privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies, combined with no detectable scripts or analytics, indicates a very early or inactive stage of the website. The technical infrastructure shows no DNSSEC enabled and no security headers present, which are minor security gaps. Overall, the site’s security posture is weak due to lack of HTTPS information and blocked content. The business credibility is low given the lack of any business details or trust indicators. This severely limits the ability to assess the company’s market position or services. Strategic recommendations include enabling DNSSEC, implementing HTTPS and security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies, and providing accessible content with clear business information.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
35/ 100 · High
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

11 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection
    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: PostgreSQL

      Port 5432 (PostgreSQL) is publicly accessible - PostgreSQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to PostgreSQL using firewall or VPN

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

  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 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';…

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

Keep watching palais-hoertenberg.com

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
35
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
35
Average
47

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 · found on this site
  • 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 blocked content and minimal website presence, no detailed business intelligence can be derived. The domain registration data shows a recent creation date with no privacy protection, registered via a reputable registrar. No partner or subsidiary domains are linked. The lack of content and contact details suggests the business is either in a pre-launch phase or inactive. No revenue streams, target customer segments, or growth indicators are visible. The company’s market positioning and competitive advantages cannot be assessed at this time.

Security posture

The website exhibits a low security maturity level with critical gaps including no DNSSEC, no visible HTTPS enforcement, and absence of security headers. The 403 Forbidden error indicates restricted access which may be intentional but limits user and crawler access. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. The lack of privacy and cookie policies also indicates compliance gaps with GDPR and other regulations. No analytics or tracking scripts were detected, which reduces privacy risks but also limits business intelligence. Overall, the security posture is weak and requires significant improvements to meet modern standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enforce HSTS to secure communications.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and inform users.
  5. Provide clear contact information and business details to improve credibility and trust.
  6. Ensure the website content is accessible to legitimate users and search engines by resolving the 403 Forbidden error.
  7. Consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to improve security transparency.
  8. Implement basic analytics and performance monitoring to improve technical and business insights.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website returns a 403 Forbidden error page indicating access is blocked or restricted. No specific WAF vendor detected but content is inaccessible. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

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 due to 403 Forbidden error.
  2. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or business details available on the page.
  4. No scripts, analytics, or tracking technologies detected.
  5. Domain is very new and DNSSEC is not enabled.
  6. No security headers or HTTPS information available.
  7. No external business or partner domains linked except font and DNS providers.
  8. No advertising or marketing technologies detected.
  9. Content safety is safe but content is minimal and blocked.
  10. Overall website quality and professionalism is poor due to lack of content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves a static 403 Forbidden error page with no dynamic content or forms. The HTML is valid but minimal, with only embedded SVG graphics and Google Fonts linked externally. No JavaScript libraries or CMS platforms are detected. DNS is managed by Technorail and Aruba DNS servers without DNSSEC enabled. No hosting provider details beyond DNS are available. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to blocked content. SEO is poor as the page is marked with 'noindex' robots meta tag and lacks metadata or structured data. Accessibility features are not present. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and requires significant development to support a functional website.
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 palais-hoertenberg.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 palais-hoertenberg.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.