Skip to main content

Security report for profolkhogskola.se

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website profolkhogskola.se currently serves a security challenge page that blocks direct access to its main content. This page includes a browser integrity check and an automatic redirect, indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or similar security mechanism, likely provided by BitNinja. Due to this blocking, detailed content and business information are not accessible, limiting the ability to fully assess the company's offerings or market position. The domain is registered since 2018 with BeebyteAB, consistent with the hosting provider, suggesting legitimacy but no further registrant details are available. Technically, the site uses outdated CMS technologies including Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, which are no longer supported and pose security risks. The site lacks visible security headers, HTTPS information, and modern SEO or accessibility features. The presence of a security challenge page improves protection but also limits user experience and content accessibility. From a security perspective, the site shows some basic best practices such as browser integrity checks and automatic redirects, but the lack of DNSSEC, outdated CMS versions, and absence of privacy or cookie policies are notable weaknesses. No contact or business information is presented, reducing trust and compliance posture. Overall, the site scores low on content quality, privacy compliance, and business credibility due to these factors. Strategically, the site should prioritize upgrading its CMS platforms, enabling HTTPS with proper SSL certificates, implementing comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, and improving transparency with contact and business information. Enhancing security headers and DNSSEC would further strengthen its security posture. Until these improvements are made, the site remains limited in trustworthiness and user engagement potential.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

8 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

      EU business without adequate privacy measures

      EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements

      What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

  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 profolkhogskola.se

This scan found 23 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
95
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
45
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
62

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

Due to the security challenge page blocking content, no direct business intelligence such as company name, services, or market positioning can be extracted. The domain age and hosting provider suggest a small-scale operation possibly related to education or community services (inferred from domain name), but no explicit business model or revenue streams are identifiable. The external link to BitNinja indicates use of third-party security services. No partnerships, subsidiaries, or strategic alliances are evident from the data provided.

Security posture

The website employs a security challenge page with browser integrity checks and automatic redirects, indicating a moderate security maturity level focused on blocking automated or malicious traffic. However, the use of outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) introduces significant vulnerabilities. The absence of DNSSEC, security headers, and HTTPS information further weakens the security posture. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available, and no privacy or cookie policies are present, indicating compliance gaps. Overall, the security culture appears minimal with reliance on external WAF services but lacking internal security hygiene.

Recommendations

  1. Upgrade Joomla and WordPress installations to current supported versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  2. Implement HTTPS with a valid SSL/TLS certificate and enable DNSSEC for domain security.
  3. Add comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to comply with GDPR and improve user trust.
  4. Publish clear contact information and business details to enhance credibility and compliance.
  5. Deploy security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and HSTS to harden the website.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Page is a security challenge page with automatic redirect and browser integrity check, indicating WAF or security protection blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript
Frameworks
Joomla 1.5, WordPress 2.5
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
30/100
Good practices seen
  • Browser integrity check script
  • Automatic redirect with countdown

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 blocked by a security challenge page.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies.
  3. No contact information or business details found on the page.
  4. Uses outdated CMS versions (Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5) which may pose security risks.
  5. Domain WHOIS data is consistent and domain is active with no privacy protection.
  6. External link to bitninja.io indicates use of BitNinja security service.
  7. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  8. Minimal content and poor SEO and accessibility.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted by BeebyteAB and uses legacy CMS platforms Joomla 1.5 and WordPress 2.5, both of which are outdated and unsupported. The HTML content is minimal and serves primarily as a security challenge page with JavaScript-based browser integrity checks and timed redirects. No modern analytics, advertising, or tracking technologies are detected. The site lacks SEO optimization and accessibility features. Performance is moderate given the minimal content but user experience is poor due to blocking mechanisms. The technical debt is high due to legacy software and missing security best practices, presenting modernization opportunities to improve stability and security.
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 profolkhogskola.se. 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 profolkhogskola.se.

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.