Skip to main content

Security report for portofantwerpbruges.com

Port of Antwerp Bruges · Transportation · Belgium

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

77/100

Risk levelLow

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

Port of Antwerp-Bruges is a major European port authority, operating the second largest port in Europe with extensive shipping and logistics services. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content targeting businesses and individuals involved in maritime transport and port operations. The technical infrastructure is modern, leveraging Next.js and React frameworks, ensuring fast performance and excellent mobile optimization. Security posture is strong with HTTPS, security headers, and no visible vulnerabilities. Privacy and cookie policies are comprehensive and GDPR compliant. However, the lack of WHOIS data reduces transparency slightly, though the overall trustworthiness remains high due to consistent branding and official social media presence.

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

3 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

  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 portofantwerpbruges.com

This scan found 20 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. See sample alerts.

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
55
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
77

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

The port authority serves a broad market in transportation and energy sectors, providing shipping, cargo handling, cruise services, and business concessions. It holds a strong market position as the second largest port in Europe, with a focus on sustainability and innovation such as CCUS and hydrogen energy. The business model revolves around infrastructure management and service provision to shipping and logistics companies. The website supports this with detailed service pages, news updates, and stakeholder engagement channels. Partnerships and official newsrooms enhance credibility and market reach.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a high level of security maturity with enforced HTTPS, multiple security headers, and secure form handling. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected. The presence of a responsible disclosure page indicates awareness of security best practices, though the absence of a security.txt file and explicit incident response contacts suggests room for improvement. GDPR compliance is well addressed through privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the security posture is robust with minor gaps in incident response transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  2. Provide explicit Data Protection Officer contact details to enhance GDPR compliance.
  3. Expand incident response contact channels with dedicated security email addresses.
  4. Regularly monitor WHOIS data to ensure domain registration transparency.
  5. Maintain and update security headers and conduct periodic vulnerability assessments.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Havenbedrijf Antwerpen NV van publiek recht
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Port of Antwerp Bruges
Description
With more than 300 liner services and 800 destinations, Port of Antwerp-Bruges is the second largest port in Europe and a true world port.
Key services
Shipping services, Cargo handling, Cruise services, Inland navigation services, Maritime services, Business concessions, Investing and industry support, Transport and logistics
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
React, Next.js, JavaScript, CSS, SVG
Frameworks
Next.js
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
90/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Security headers present
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with proper input types

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
CookiePro
Marketing tools
CookiePro
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content and navigation.
  2. Strong branding and consistent design across pages.
  3. Comprehensive legal and privacy documentation present.
  4. No signs of phishing or malware detected.
  5. Use of modern web technologies and frameworks.
  6. Social media presence on major platforms.
  7. No exposed sensitive data or security misconfigurations found.
  8. WHOIS data missing, which slightly impacts trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern tech stack including Next.js and React, ensuring good performance and scalability. The CMS appears to be Drupal, supporting structured content management. The site is well optimized for mobile devices and accessibility standards. SEO practices are implemented with proper meta tags and structured data. The use of external services like CookiePro and Google Tag Manager supports compliance and analytics needs. Hosting provider details are not explicit but performance is fast. Technical risks are minimal with no detected outdated libraries or broken elements.
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 portofantwerpbruges.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 portofantwerpbruges.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.