Skip to main content

Security report for rs-rs.si

Računsko sodišče Republike Slovenije · Government · Slovenia

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Računsko sodišče Republike Slovenije is the supreme audit institution responsible for auditing public funds and ensuring transparency in the management of state finances in Slovenia. The website serves as an official platform to publish audit reports, ongoing audits, and related information for government officials, media, and the public. The institution holds a strong market position as a government entity with a long-established domain since 1998, registered under the Ministry for Digital Transformation. Technically, the website is built on TYPO3 CMS with modern frontend technologies such as jQuery, Splide.js, and Bootstrap, providing a responsive and accessible user experience. The site is well-structured with clear navigation and SEO-friendly metadata. Security posture is good with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities, although some security headers could be improved. Privacy compliance is moderate with a clear privacy policy present but no visible cookie consent mechanism. Contact information is comprehensive and trustworthy, including official emails and phone numbers. No advertising or tracking services are detected, indicating a privacy-conscious approach. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and serves its government oversight function effectively. Strategic improvements in security headers and privacy mechanisms could enhance its security and compliance posture further.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

6 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

    • 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. 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';…

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

Keep watching rs-rs.si

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
85
Security headers
65
Email security
55
DNS health
65
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
63

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 institution operates as a government auditing body, providing essential services in public finance oversight. Its competitive advantage lies in its official mandate and long-standing presence. The business model is non-commercial, focused on transparency and accountability. The target audience includes government entities, media, and citizens interested in public spending. Growth indicators are stable given the government backing. The partnership ecosystem includes international audit organizations as implied by news content. The website supports strategic communication and public trust in government financial management.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a mature security posture with HTTPS enabled and secure form handling. No exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries are detected. However, the absence of explicit security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. There is no public incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which could be beneficial for transparency and security culture. Overall, the site is secure but could enhance its defenses and compliance documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner and detailed cookie policy to improve privacy compliance.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and vulnerability disclosure page with contact channels.
  4. Regularly audit and update third-party libraries to avoid potential vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features and mobile optimization for broader user inclusivity.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Računsko sodišče Republike Slovenije
Registration number
5874742000
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Računsko sodišče Republike Slovenije
Description
Računsko sodišče Republike Slovenije is the highest authority for auditing state accounts, state budget, and public spending in Slovenia. It performs audits and issues reports on the management and use of public funds, providing transparency and accountability to the National Assembly and the public.
Key services
Auditing public funds, Issuing audit reports, Providing transparency on public spending, Publishing audit archives and ongoing audits
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
TYPO3 CMS, jQuery, Splide.js, Font Awesome, Bootstrap CSS
Frameworks
TYPO3 CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Secure forms with POST method

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a government institution site with official audit reports and public finance oversight.
  2. Content is in Slovenian with English alternate language available.
  3. No signs of blocking or WAF challenges.
  4. No explicit privacy or cookie consent banners detected, but privacy policy is present.
  5. Contact information is clearly provided with official emails and phone numbers.
  6. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure page.
  7. No advertising or tracking scripts detected.
  8. Good use of modern web technologies and CMS TYPO3.
  9. Site is well structured with clear navigation and accessible content.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses TYPO3 CMS, a robust and widely used open-source content management system suitable for government websites. Frontend technologies include jQuery and Splide.js for interactive elements like carousels. The site loads CSS and JS assets efficiently with compressed files. Meta tags and Open Graph data are well implemented for SEO and social sharing. The site is mobile responsive and accessible with skip links and ARIA labels. No major technical debt or deprecated technologies are evident. Hosting details are not explicit but the domain and content suggest government infrastructure. Performance is moderate with potential for optimization in asset delivery.
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 rs-rs.si. 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 rs-rs.si.

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.