Skip to main content

Security report for recomm.eu

RE.COMM · Real Estate · Austria

High risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

34/100

Risk levelHigh

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

RE.COMM operates a professional real estate leaders summit event in Austria, targeting top managers and decision makers in the real estate sector. The website serves as an information and registration platform for the annual summit scheduled for November 2025. The company positions itself as a leading think tank and networking forum within the real estate industry. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Elementor and several plugins for SEO, multilingual support, and GDPR compliance. However, the site suffers from critical security issues including an invalid or missing SSL certificate and lack of HTTPS enforcement, which significantly impacts user trust and security posture. The DNS configuration appears incomplete or misconfigured, lacking essential A/AAAA records and DNSSEC, which raises concerns about domain management. Privacy and cookie policies are well implemented, and social media presence is active. Overall, the site is professionally designed but requires urgent technical and security improvements to ensure trustworthiness and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 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

5 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 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.

    • Critical

      Unable to retrieve SSL certificate

      Could not establish secure connection to retrieve certificate information

      What to do: Check if the server is accessible and SSL/TLS is properly configured

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching recomm.eu

This scan found 15 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
65
Email security
50
DNS health
50
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
18
Average
34

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 focuses on organizing a high-profile real estate summit attracting up to 250 industry leaders and international speakers. Its business model revolves around event management, networking facilitation, and thought leadership in the real estate sector. The company leverages partnerships with notable industry players and maintains a multilingual website to cater to a German and English-speaking audience. Revenue streams likely include ticket sales, sponsorships, and partnerships. The presence of mentoring programs indicates additional value-added services. The company maintains a consistent brand image and uses professional marketing tools including Google Analytics and Tag Manager. However, the lack of detailed WHOIS and DNS information could indicate operational or administrative gaps that should be addressed.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols, exposing users to potential data interception risks. While some security headers are present, the lack of HTTPS negates their effectiveness. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are found, and no security.txt file is present. The site uses secure forms with CAPTCHA integration, but overall security best practices are not fully implemented. The DNS setup is incomplete, lacking DNSSEC and CAA records, which could expose the domain to spoofing or hijacking risks. Immediate remediation is required to secure communications and improve domain integrity.

Recommendations

  1. Acquire and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and 1.3) and implement OCSP stapling and session resumption.
  3. Configure DNS records correctly including A/AAAA, DNSSEC, and CAA to enhance domain security.
  4. Publish explicit security and incident response policies, including a vulnerability disclosure program.
  5. Regularly audit and update security headers and Content Security Policy for enhanced protection.
  6. Improve website performance by optimizing scripts and resources to reduce load times.
  7. Enhance accessibility features to meet WCAG standards for broader user inclusivity.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using Elementor and several popular plugins for SEO, multilingual content, GDPR compliance, and form handling. It integrates Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for tracking. The site uses Bootstrap and Font Awesome for styling and icons. Despite a rich tech stack, the site suffers from poor SSL/TLS configuration and missing DNS records, which are critical technical risks. Performance metrics are missing but the number of scripts and plugins suggests moderate to slow loading times. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO is supported by Yoast SEO and structured data. Technical debt includes outdated SSL setup and incomplete DNS configuration, which should be prioritized for remediation.
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 recomm.eu. 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 recomm.eu.

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.