Skip to main content

Security report for rwe.dk

Rosenfelt & West Engineering A/S · Transportation · Denmark

High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Rosenfelt & West Engineering A/S is a Danish engineering company specializing in railway safety systems, including automatic secured level crossings and marshalling yard safety installations. The company offers comprehensive services such as equipment renovation, training courses, and career opportunities within the railway safety sector. Their market position is supported by certifications in environmental management, quality management, and railway safety standards, reflecting a commitment to reliability and compliance. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with common plugins and hosted on a LiteSpeed server, but lacks a valid SSL certificate, which is a significant security concern. The absence of HTTPS and related security headers exposes the site and its visitors to potential risks. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie policy or consent mechanism detected. Contact information is limited to a phone number and contact page link, with no email addresses or social media profiles found. Overall, the website is professional and content-rich but requires urgent security improvements to protect users and enhance trust.

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. 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"

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

Keep watching rwe.dk

This scan found 21 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
0
Security headers
15
Email security
50
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
40

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 company operates in the transportation sector, focusing on railway safety engineering. Their business model includes product supply, system installation, equipment renovation, and training services. With over 30 years of experience and installations across Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, they hold a niche market position as specialists in railway safety technology. The company emphasizes quality and safety certifications, which serve as trust signals to clients. Their target customers include railway operators, safety technicians, and installers. The website content and structure support their business goals, but digital maturity is moderate due to missing HTTPS and limited online contact options. No evident partnerships or subsidiaries were identified from the domain or website content.

Security posture

The security posture of the website is weak due to the lack of a valid SSL certificate, absence of HSTS, and missing security headers. No Web Application Firewall or vulnerability disclosure policy is present. Email authentication mechanisms like DMARC are not configured, increasing the risk of phishing. The site does not expose known vulnerabilities or sensitive data but remains at risk due to insecure transport. Incident response and security policy information are not found, indicating limited transparency in security governance. These gaps pose business risks, especially for a company dealing with safety-critical systems. Immediate remediation of HTTPS and security headers is recommended to improve security maturity.

Recommendations

  1. Install and maintain a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  3. Configure DMARC, SPF, and DKIM records to protect email domains from spoofing.
  4. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Develop and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy and security incident response contacts.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses WordPress CMS with a modern theme (Astra) and several plugins including All in One SEO and TranslatePress for multilingual support. It is hosted on a LiteSpeed server with caching enabled via WP-Optimize. The site loads no measurable resources or page size in the provided data, indicating possible incomplete performance data or caching effects. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO metadata is well implemented with Open Graph and JSON-LD structured data. However, the lack of HTTPS and security best practices reduces the technical robustness. The site could benefit from performance monitoring and enhanced accessibility features.
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 rwe.dk. 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 rwe.dk.

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.