Skip to main content

Security report for quattro-cultura.de

QUATTRO · Other · Germany

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

70/100

Risk levelMedium

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

QUATTRO is a small local business based in Köln, Germany, focused on cultural services or products, as indicated by the website and structured data. The website is built on WordPress using the Gutenberg editor and Go-X plugin, reflecting a moderate level of digital maturity. The site is accessible, mobile-optimized, and uses HTTPS, but lacks comprehensive privacy and cookie policies, as well as security headers, which are important for compliance and security posture. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is provided, which could be a risk factor. Overall, the website presents basic business information with moderate trustworthiness but requires improvements in privacy compliance and security best practices.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
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

4 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 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';…

  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 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 quattro-cultura.de

This scan found 22 issues across 5 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
77
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
100
Average
70

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 business appears to be a local cultural service provider targeting a general audience in Germany. The website content is basic and consistent with a small business model. There is no evidence of extensive marketing, analytics, or partnership ecosystems. The lack of detailed business descriptions and certifications limits the ability to assess market positioning or competitive advantages. Contact information is clearly provided, supporting customer engagement. The business model is service-oriented with no visible e-commerce or complex functionalities.

Security posture

The website benefits from HTTPS encryption, which is mandatory for secure communications. However, the absence of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and others reduces the overall security posture. No signs of vulnerable libraries or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content. The lack of a security.txt file and incident response contacts indicates limited preparedness for security incidents. Privacy compliance is weak due to missing privacy and cookie policies. These gaps present moderate security and compliance risks.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR and other regulations.
  2. Add security headers to enhance protection against common web vulnerabilities.
  3. Create a security.txt file and provide clear incident response contact information to improve security transparency and readiness.
  4. Regularly audit and update WordPress plugins and themes to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance website content quality and business information to improve trust and professionalism.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
QUATTRO
Description
Local business located in Köln offering cultural services or products (exact business description not explicitly stated).
Content quality
basic
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Gutenberg, Go-X plugin, wp-emoji, glightbox
Frameworks
Gutenberg
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
70/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
basic
Navigation
basic
Professionalism
basic
Trustworthiness
moderate

Key observations

  1. Website is a small local business site with basic content and limited business details.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, indicating compliance gaps.
  3. No visible forms or data collection mechanisms detected in provided HTML.
  4. Uses WordPress CMS with Gutenberg editor and Go-X plugin.
  5. No social media links or marketing/analytics tools detected.
  6. HTTPS is enabled, but security headers are missing.
  7. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information provided.
  8. WHOIS data is minimal but domain is active and not privacy protected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with Gutenberg blocks and the Go-X plugin, indicating a modern but basic technical stack. The site loads scripts such as wp-emoji and glightbox for UI enhancements. Performance appears moderate with mobile optimization in place. SEO and accessibility features are basic but present. Hosting provider details are not explicitly identified. The site lacks advanced analytics or marketing tools, which could be an opportunity for growth. Technical risks include missing security headers and incomplete privacy compliance.
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 quattro-cultura.de. 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 quattro-cultura.de.

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.