Skip to main content

Security report for proxmox.com

Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

71/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH is a medium-sized German technology company specializing in open-source enterprise server solutions, including virtualization (Proxmox VE), backup (Proxmox Backup Server), and email security (Proxmox Mail Gateway). The company maintains a strong market position with a comprehensive partner ecosystem and community engagement. Their website reflects a professional and well-structured digital presence, leveraging Joomla CMS and modern web technologies with good mobile optimization and accessibility. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and SPF records in place, though there is room for improvement in advanced security headers and certificate transparency. Privacy compliance is well addressed with clear cookie consent mechanisms and a comprehensive privacy policy. Overall, the website demonstrates high professionalism and trustworthiness, supporting Proxmox's reputation as a reliable open-source enterprise solution provider.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of proxmox.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
43/ 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

3 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.

    • High

      No Cookie Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

    • 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.

    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching proxmox.com

This scan found 21 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
67
Security headers
75
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
43
Average
71

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention proxmox.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
2,870
Employees
0
Customers
2,824
Third parties
46
Weak passwords
13%

14 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 proxmox.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Proxmox operates in the technology sector focusing on open-source virtualization and backup solutions. Their business model combines free software with paid enterprise support, training, and partner services. The company targets IT professionals and enterprises requiring robust, secure, and cost-effective server infrastructure solutions. Their market presence is reinforced by active community involvement, transparent development practices, and a growing partner network. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers suggests a preference for controlled communication channels via forms and portals, enhancing security and support management. The company’s longevity since 2004 and consistent branding indicate stability and maturity in their market niche.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.3 and 1.2) and maintains a valid SPF record, reducing risks of email spoofing. No critical SSL vulnerabilities were detected, and no exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were found. However, the absence of HSTS, OCSP stapling, and key security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options limits the security posture. There is no published security policy or incident response contact, which could hinder transparency and rapid response to security incidents. Cookie consent is implemented properly, supporting GDPR compliance. Overall, the security maturity is good but could be enhanced by adopting additional best practices and publishing formal security documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload to enforce HTTPS.
  2. Implement OCSP stapling to improve SSL certificate revocation checking performance and security.
  3. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
  4. Publish a dedicated security policy page including incident response contacts to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Consider deploying DNSSEC and CAA DNS records to enhance DNS security and certificate issuance control.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Joomla CMS with Bootstrap 5 and FontAwesome for UI components, ensuring a modern and responsive design. JavaScript modules and deferred loading optimize performance, though the page load time is moderate (~6 seconds). The use of Matomo analytics indicates a privacy-conscious approach to user tracking. DNS records are well configured with multiple authoritative nameservers and a valid SPF record. SSL certificates cover multiple subdomains but lack OCSP stapling and certificate transparency compliance. The site is hosted on IP 212.224.123.69 with nameservers under kapper.net, suggesting a professional hosting environment. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid with opportunities for performance and security enhancements.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 76/100Low27 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with proxmox.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 proxmox.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.