Skip to main content

Security report for publicprocurement.be

BOSA · Government · Belgium

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

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.publicprocurement.be represents BOSA's eProcurement platform, presumably serving as a government portal for managing public procurement processes in Belgium. However, the website content is not fully accessible, showing only a loading spinner without substantive content. This limits the ability to assess the platform's full capabilities or user experience. The technical infrastructure is based on modern JavaScript frameworks such as Vue.js and Vuetify, indicating a contemporary approach to frontend development, but the incomplete content delivery suggests possible issues with deployment or access restrictions. From a security perspective, the site lacks visible security headers, privacy policies, cookie consent mechanisms, and contact information for incident response, which are critical for compliance and trust, especially for a government platform handling sensitive procurement data. The WHOIS data is blocked with a 'NOT ALLOWED' status, preventing verification of domain registration details and reducing trustworthiness. Overall, the security posture is weak due to missing essential controls and transparency. Given the minimal accessible content and blocked WHOIS data, the overall risk assessment is elevated. Strategic recommendations include ensuring full content availability, implementing comprehensive security headers, publishing privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms, and providing clear contact and incident response information. Additionally, verifying and publishing domain registration details would enhance trust and legitimacy.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of publicprocurement.be. View the latest report

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 publicprocurement.be

This scan found 25 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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
60
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
60

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

BOSA operates as a government entity providing eProcurement services for public procurement in Belgium. The platform targets government agencies and suppliers involved in public tenders. Its business model is service-oriented, focusing on digital transformation of procurement processes. The use of modern frontend technologies suggests an investment in digital maturity, but the lack of accessible content and transparency limits competitive advantage and user trust. No partnerships or subsidiaries are evident from the data. The platform's growth and market position appear stable as an official government service, but improvements in transparency and user engagement are needed.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is low due to absence of visible security headers, lack of HTTPS verification in the provided data, no privacy or cookie policies, and no incident response contacts. The blocked WHOIS data further complicates trust verification. There are no indications of vulnerabilities in the code, but the incomplete content and missing security best practices represent compliance gaps, particularly with GDPR and NIS2 regulations applicable to government services. The platform lacks a security culture visible to users, which may impact incident response readiness and data protection confidence.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configuration and verify certificate validity.
  2. Add comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish clear privacy and cookie policies with explicit consent mechanisms to ensure GDPR compliance.
  4. Provide visible contact information for security incident reporting and designate a Data Protection Officer.
  5. Ensure WHOIS data is accessible or provide official domain registration information to enhance trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. Website content is minimal and shows a loading spinner with no actual content loaded, indicating possible blocking or incomplete content delivery. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Company
BOSA
Description
BOSA provides eProcurement services likely for public procurement processes in Belgium.
Key services
eProcurement platform, Public procurement management
Content quality
poor
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Vue.js, Uppy
Frameworks
Vuetify
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

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. WHOIS data is blocked and unavailable.
  2. Website content is minimal and does not load fully, showing only a loading spinner.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the HTML.
  4. No contact information or security policies are present.
  5. No external links or social media links detected.
  6. Uses modern JavaScript frameworks (Vue.js, Vuetify) but content is not rendered.
  7. No security headers or SSL configuration details available.
  8. Website likely protected or content blocked by a security mechanism or incomplete load.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern JavaScript stack with Vue.js and Vuetify for UI components, and Uppy for file uploads. The site loads minimal HTML content with a loading spinner, indicating either a client-side rendering dependency or content blocking. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance is moderate but cannot be fully assessed due to incomplete content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic, with no explicit features detected. SEO optimization is poor due to lack of meta tags and structured data. Technical risks include reliance on client-side rendering without fallback content and potential blocking by security mechanisms.
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. 60/100Medium34 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with publicprocurement.be. 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 publicprocurement.be.

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.