Skip to main content

Security report for post-co.com

Post & Co · Transportation · Netherlands

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

37/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Post & Co is an independent provider specializing in marine liability and logistics insurance, serving a broad range of clients in the maritime and logistics sectors including ship owners, charterers, terminal and transport operators, and port authorities. The company emphasizes quality service, innovation, and market focus, with a presence in Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Frankfurt. Their website reflects a professional business with multilingual support and clear contact channels. Technically, the site is built on WordPress using common plugins and frameworks but lacks a valid SSL certificate, which significantly impacts security posture. The site uses Google Analytics and has cookie consent mechanisms in place, indicating some privacy compliance. However, the absence of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols presents a critical security risk. Overall, the business appears legitimate and established, but the website requires urgent security improvements to protect user data and enhance trust.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
33/ 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

6 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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"

    • 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 post-co.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
0
Security headers
35
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
33
Average
37

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 company holds a solid market position as a specialized insurer in marine and logistics sectors, leveraging over 25 years of experience in charterers’ liability insurance with Lloyd’s security backing. Their business model focuses on providing tailored insurance products across multiple marine-related disciplines. The website content and structure support clear communication of services and contact information, targeting industry professionals and companies involved in maritime logistics. The multilingual approach broadens their market reach. The lack of visible certifications or security policies on the site suggests potential areas for strengthening trust and compliance. The company maintains active social media profiles on Facebook and LinkedIn, supporting engagement and brand presence.

Security posture

The website’s security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS support, exposing users to potential data interception risks. While some security headers like Strict-Transport-Security are present, they are ineffective without HTTPS. No advanced security policies or incident response contacts are published. The site uses content protection scripts to prevent copying, but this does not compensate for fundamental transport layer security deficiencies. Google Analytics is implemented, but privacy compliance is basic. The overall security maturity is low, requiring immediate remediation to meet modern security standards and regulatory compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Install and configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire website.
  2. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) to secure data in transit.
  3. Implement additional security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Publish clear security and incident response policies, including dedicated security contact channels.
  5. Regularly update WordPress core, plugins, and themes to mitigate vulnerabilities and improve performance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a WordPress CMS platform using PHP 7.4.33 and Apache 2 server. It employs popular plugins such as WPBakery Page Builder and Slider Revolution for content management and presentation. The site loads external resources from Google Fonts and jQuery CDN. Performance metrics are not available, but the site appears to have moderate loading characteristics with some optimization potential. Mobile responsiveness is good, and SEO basics like meta tags and alternate hreflang links are implemented. However, the lack of HTTPS and modern TLS support is a critical technical deficiency. The site uses cookie consent banners and analytics scripts, indicating some level of digital maturity but with room for improvement in security and privacy practices.
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 post-co.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 post-co.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.