Skip to main content

Security report for schadefonds.nl

Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven · Government · Netherlands

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven is a Dutch government-backed compensation fund established in 2000 to provide financial support to victims of violent and sexual crimes, as well as their relatives and witnesses. The organization operates with a clear mission to acknowledge victims' suffering and offer monetary compensation without requiring legal proceedings against perpetrators. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, clear navigation, and professional design, targeting victims and stakeholders in the Netherlands. Collaboration with Slachtofferhulp Nederland enhances victim support services. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with modern plugins such as Gravity Forms and Yoast SEO Premium, ensuring good SEO and user experience. It uses HTTPS with DNSSEC enabled, integrates analytics tools like Google Analytics and Hotjar, and employs secure login via DigiD. The site is mobile-optimized and accessible, with a fast to moderate performance profile. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates strong baseline protections including HTTPS, DNSSEC, and secure mail sending via Zivver. However, explicit security policies, incident response details, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms are not publicly available, representing areas for improvement. No vulnerabilities or suspicious activities were detected. Overall, Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven presents a trustworthy, professional, and secure online presence consistent with its government affiliation and mission. Strategic recommendations include publishing detailed security policies, incident response plans, and vulnerability disclosure information to enhance transparency and trust further.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

4 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 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"

    • 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. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1

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

Keep watching schadefonds.nl

This scan found 23 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
72
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
68

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 organization holds a strong market position as a government entity providing essential victim compensation services in the Netherlands. Its business model is non-profit and government-funded, focusing on social welfare rather than commercial revenue. The target audience includes victims of violent and sexual crimes, their families, and witnesses. The website supports this with clear service descriptions, application guidance, and partner collaboration. The presence of ISO 9001:2015 certification indicates a commitment to quality management. The partnership ecosystem includes Slachtofferhulp Nederland and recruitment via werkenbijschadefonds.nl. Growth indicators include recent news updates and satisfaction surveys, reflecting ongoing service improvement efforts.

Security posture

The website exhibits a solid security posture with HTTPS enforced, DNSSEC enabled, and secure communication channels such as Zivver for sensitive emails. Use of DigiD for user authentication adds a layer of identity assurance. The absence of explicit security policies and incident response information is a gap in transparency but does not necessarily indicate poor security. Third-party scripts are used but no known vulnerable libraries were detected. The site lacks a published vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file, which could improve security culture and incident handling. Overall, the security maturity is good but could benefit from enhanced documentation and proactive disclosure mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive security policy and incident response plan on the website.
  2. Implement and publicly disclose a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file.
  3. Add additional security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Content-Type-Options.
  4. Regularly review and update third-party scripts and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance transparency by providing contact details for the Data Protection Officer or security team.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven
Description
Het Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven is er voor slachtoffers die ernstig lichamelijk en/of psychisch letsel hebben of hadden.
Key services
Financial compensation for victims of violent and sexual crimes, Support and guidance for application process, Collaboration with Slachtofferhulp Nederland for victim assistance
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress 6.8.3, Gravity Forms plugin, Yoast SEO Premium, jQuery, Cycle2 jQuery plugin, Swiper, Hotjar, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics (gtag.js)
Frameworks
WordPress
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • DNSSEC enabled
  • No contact with perpetrators
  • Use of DigiD for secure login
  • Secure mail sending via Zivver

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Hotjar
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a government-backed compensation fund for victims of violent crimes
  2. Content is comprehensive, well-structured, and professionally presented
  3. Strong privacy and cookie policies with consent mechanisms
  4. Use of modern web technologies and SEO best practices
  5. No signs of malicious or suspicious activity
  6. Clear contact information and social media presence
  7. Collaboration with recognized partner organizations
  8. No evidence of security policy or incident response published publicly
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt found
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform with well-maintained plugins like Gravity Forms and Yoast SEO, supporting strong SEO and user engagement. The use of Google Tag Manager and Hotjar indicates a data-driven approach to user experience optimization. Performance is moderate with room for improvement, especially in optimizing third-party scripts and media assets. The site is mobile-responsive and accessible, adhering to good web standards. Hosting details are not explicitly identified but the presence of DNSSEC and HTTPS suggests a secure hosting environment. Technical debt appears low, but ongoing maintenance is recommended to keep dependencies current.
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 schadefonds.nl. 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 schadefonds.nl.

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.