Skip to main content

Security report for ristorante-laterrazza.de

Ristorante La Terrazza · Hospitality · Germany

Critical risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

25/100

Risk levelCritical

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

Ristorante La Terrazza is a small Italian restaurant located in Krefeld, Germany, specializing in fresh seasonal dishes with a focus on fish and wild game. The business emphasizes warm hospitality and a pleasant dining ambiance, targeting local residents and visitors seeking quality Italian cuisine. The website reflects a local hospitality business model without online reservations, relying on direct phone contact. Technically, the website uses Mobirise CMS with Bootstrap and jQuery libraries, hosted on Cloudpit servers. Performance is moderate to slow, and mobile optimization is good. However, the site lacks HTTPS support, exposing visitors to security risks. Privacy and cookie policies exist but are basic and not fully GDPR compliant. No terms of service or security policies are present. Overall, the site is functional but requires significant security improvements.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

10 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

  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

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  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.

    • Critical

      Critical Service Exposed: MySQL

      Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server

      What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN

      • 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

  4. 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

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

Keep watching ristorante-laterrazza.de

This scan found 22 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
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
0
GDPR outside view
0
Average
25

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 · found on this site
  • 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 restaurant positions itself as a quality local dining option with a focus on fresh ingredients and personalized service. Its business model is traditional, relying on in-person dining and phone reservations. The website content is consistent with a small hospitality business, with no evidence of complex digital services or e-commerce. The presence of a Facebook page indicates some social media engagement. The lack of advanced analytics or marketing tools suggests limited digital marketing efforts. The domain registration aligns with the business location and type, supporting legitimacy. There are no partnerships or subsidiaries indicated.

Security posture

The website's security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, which is critical for protecting user data and establishing trust. No security headers are implemented, and no incident response or security policies are disclosed. The site does not use modern TLS protocols or security best practices such as HSTS or OCSP stapling. These deficiencies expose the site and its visitors to potential interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The lack of GDPR compliance indicators in privacy policies and cookie consent mechanisms further weakens the security and privacy posture.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement essential security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Enhance privacy and cookie policies to ensure full GDPR compliance and clearly communicate data handling practices.
  4. Add a terms of service and security policy page to improve transparency and user trust.
  5. Consider implementing basic incident response contact channels such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built using Mobirise CMS with Bootstrap 4 and jQuery, indicating a small business site with standard web technologies. Hosting is provided by Cloudpit, as indicated by DNS NS records. The site has a slow load time of over 4 seconds and a modest page size. Mobile optimization is good, but accessibility and SEO optimizations are basic. No advanced analytics or tracking scripts are detected, which limits data-driven marketing insights. The lack of HTTPS and modern TLS protocols is a critical technical risk. The site uses a cookie consent banner, but the implementation is basic. Overall, the technical infrastructure is functional but outdated and insecure.
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 ristorante-laterrazza.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 ristorante-laterrazza.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.