Skip to main content

Security report for risiko-dialog.ch

Stiftung Risiko-Dialog · Energy · Switzerland

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers and GDPR outside view.

Security score

84/100

Risk levelLow

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

Stiftung Risiko-Dialog is a Swiss non-profit foundation focused on fostering societal resilience and risk competence through dialogue with stakeholders and the public. The foundation operates primarily in the energy and societal sectors, addressing challenges related to digitalization, climate, and risk management. Their website reflects a professional and consistent brand image, targeting a broad audience including civil society and stakeholders interested in risk and resilience topics. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with modern technologies such as Matomo for privacy-conscious analytics and imgix for image optimization. The site is mobile-optimized and well-structured, providing a good user experience. Security posture is solid with HTTPS and no visible vulnerabilities, though some security headers and explicit policies could be improved. Privacy compliance is good with a comprehensive privacy policy but lacks a cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the site is trustworthy and professionally maintained, supporting the foundation's mission effectively.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
65/ 100 · Medium
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. 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 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. 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

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

Keep watching risiko-dialog.ch

This scan found 13 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
100
Security headers
70
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
65
Average
84

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 foundation holds a niche position in the Swiss non-profit sector, focusing on risk dialogue and societal resilience. Its business model revolves around research, stakeholder engagement, and public communication rather than commercial revenue. The website supports multilingual access, indicating an inclusive approach. The presence of social media channels and regular news updates suggests active engagement and transparency. No commercial advertising or affiliate programs are detected, consistent with a non-profit profile. The foundation's partnerships or subsidiaries are not explicitly listed, indicating a standalone operation. The organization's credibility is supported by clear contact information and professional content.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with enforced HTTPS and use of privacy-respecting analytics (Matomo). No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. However, the absence of common security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options is a minor gap. There is no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which could be improved to enhance transparency and readiness. The lack of a cookie consent mechanism may pose GDPR compliance risks. Overall, the security posture is good but could benefit from formalized policies and additional technical controls.

Recommendations

  1. Implement standard security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner/mechanism to ensure full GDPR compliance regarding tracking and cookies.
  3. Publish an explicit security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and preparedness.
  4. Consider creating a security.txt file to facilitate vulnerability reporting by external researchers.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and libraries to ensure no vulnerabilities are introduced.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Stiftung Risiko-Dialog
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Stiftung Risiko-Dialog
Description
Die Stiftung Risiko-Dialog ist ein unabhängiger Think & Do Tank, der den Dialog mit Stakeholdern und der Bevölkerung führt, um den Umgang mit gesellschaftlichen, technologischen und ökologischen Risiken zu fördern und tragfähige Lösungen für die Zukunft zu gestalten.
Key services
Dialogführung mit Stakeholdern und Bevölkerung, Förderung von Risikokompetenz und Resilienzkultur, Projekte in den Themenfeldern Digitalisierung, Klima & Energie, Risiko & Resilienz
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, jQuery, Matomo Analytics, imgix (image optimization)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of Matomo for privacy-respecting analytics

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges
  2. Content is in German with multilingual support (French, English)
  3. Professional and consistent branding with clear navigation
  4. Focus on societal risk dialogue and resilience
  5. Use of privacy-respecting analytics (Matomo)
  6. Contact information clearly provided in footer
  7. No explicit cookie consent mechanism detected
  8. No visible security policy or incident response info
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with jQuery and uses Matomo for analytics, indicating a preference for privacy-conscious tools. Images are optimized via imgix, improving load times and performance. The site is responsive and mobile-friendly, with good SEO meta tags including Open Graph and Twitter cards. The HTML is valid and well-structured, supporting accessibility at a basic level. Hosting details are not explicit but the use of external Matomo server suggests third-party analytics hosting. Performance is moderate, with potential for improvement by adding caching and security headers. No critical technical debt or outdated libraries were detected.
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 risiko-dialog.ch. 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 risiko-dialog.ch.

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.