Skip to main content

Security report for schoenstattmjf.de

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

62/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.schoenstattmjf.de is a small-scale site hosted on the Wix platform, likely representing a religious or community organization based on the domain and language (German). The site lacks visible business descriptions, contact information, or legal compliance documents such as privacy or cookie policies. Technically, it uses standard Wix scripts and polyfills with basic HTTPS security but lacks advanced security headers and SEO optimizations. The security posture is minimal with no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information available. Overall, the site appears functional but lacks professional completeness and compliance features.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
33/ 100 · High
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 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 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';…

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

Keep watching schoenstattmjf.de

This scan found 26 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
72
Security headers
35
Email security
70
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
33
Average
62

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

Due to the absence of explicit business information, the market positioning and business model cannot be confidently determined. The site likely serves a niche community or religious group, targeting German-speaking users. There are no visible partnerships, certifications, or trust signals. The business credibility is low due to missing contact and compliance information.

Security posture

The site uses HTTPS but lacks critical security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options. No security or incident response policies are published. The use of Sentry indicates some level of error monitoring but no advanced security measures are evident. The absence of privacy and cookie policies indicates non-compliance with GDPR requirements, which is a significant gap for sites targeting EU users.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism to comply with GDPR.
  2. Add contact information including emails, phone numbers, and physical addresses to improve business credibility.
  3. Configure essential security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options) to enhance security posture.
  4. Improve SEO by adding meta tags, Open Graph data, and structured data (JSON-LD) for better search engine visibility.
  5. Establish an incident response contact channel and consider publishing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Content quality
poor
Branding
inconsistent

Technology

Stack
Wix, Sentry, Core-js, Focus-within-polyfill, Intl-segmenter polyfill
Platforms
Wix.com
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
40/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled

Analytics and tracking

Services
Sentry
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Sentry
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
basic
User experience
basic
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is built on Wix platform with standard Wix scripts and polyfills.
  2. No privacy policy, cookie policy, or terms of service found in the HTML content.
  3. No contact emails, phone numbers, or physical addresses explicitly found in the content.
  4. No social media links or business certifications detected.
  5. No security headers detected in the provided data; HTTPS is enabled.
  6. Content is minimal and mostly technical scripts and styles; no visible business or descriptive content extracted.
  7. No forms detected in the provided HTML snippet.
  8. No structured data (JSON-LD) or Open Graph meta tags found in the provided content.
  9. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file detected.
  10. No data protection officer contact information found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on the Wix platform, leveraging Wix's hosting and content delivery infrastructure. It uses modern JavaScript polyfills and error tracking via Sentry. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization. The site lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. There is no evidence of custom backend or complex integrations. Technical debt appears low but the site would benefit from improved metadata, security configurations, and compliance documentation.
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 schoenstattmjf.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 schoenstattmjf.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.