Skip to main content

Security report for schoppe.it

schoppe.it · Technology · Germany

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

53/100

Risk levelMedium

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

schoppe.it is a small German IT service provider specializing in IT support, web services, web hosting, and training primarily targeting private customers, regional SMEs, and non-profit organizations. The company has been operating since 2017 and presents a professional online presence with clear service offerings and a consistent brand identity. The website is built on WordPress using the Twenty Twenty-One theme and incorporates privacy-respecting Matomo analytics. The technical infrastructure is modern with HTTPS and DNSSEC enabled, ensuring secure communications. However, some security best practices such as security headers and cookie consent mechanisms are missing. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved with additional policies and technical controls. The website content is safe for general audiences and does not contain any adult or questionable material. The domain registration data aligns well with the business claims, supporting legitimacy and trustworthiness.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
28/ 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

5 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. 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

  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.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • 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

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

Keep watching schoppe.it

This scan found 27 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
62
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
28
Average
53

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 business operates in the technology sector, focusing on IT and web services for a niche regional market. Its competitive advantage lies in offering professional services at fair prices tailored to small businesses and non-profits. The business model is service-based with revenue streams likely from IT support contracts, web development, hosting, and training. The partnership ecosystem is limited but includes internal links to a wiki and related service pages. Growth indicators are not explicit but the domain age and consistent branding suggest stable operations. The company does not publicly display certifications or extensive trust signals but maintains a professional digital footprint.

Security posture

The security maturity level is moderate to good. The site uses HTTPS with a valid SSL certificate and DNSSEC is enabled, which are strong indicators of secure domain and transport layer security. No security headers were detected in the HTML, which is a gap that could expose the site to certain web-based attacks. There is no visible security policy or incident response information, which limits transparency and preparedness. The use of Matomo analytics indicates a privacy-conscious approach to user tracking. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found in the HTML content. Compliance with GDPR is partially indicated by the presence of a privacy policy but lacks cookie consent mechanisms. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not publicly visible.

Recommendations

  1. Implement HTTP security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner or mechanism to comply fully with EU cookie laws and improve privacy compliance.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to increase transparency and trust.
  4. Consider creating a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  5. Enhance contact information visibility by adding verified company emails and phone numbers on the website.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
schoppe.it
Description
An IT service provider specializing in IT support, web services, web hosting, and training for private customers, regional SMEs, and non-profit organizations.
Key services
IT Service, Web Service, Webhosting, Training, Data protection consulting
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, PHP, jQuery, Matomo Analytics
Frameworks
WordPress Twenty Twenty-One theme
Platforms
WordPress CMS
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • DNSSEC enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • No vulnerable libraries detected

Analytics and tracking

Services
Matomo
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Matomo
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is a professional small IT and web service provider
  2. Content is in German language targeting local/regional customers
  3. No explicit contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage; contact form available
  4. No cookie consent banner detected despite EU GDPR relevance
  5. Uses Matomo analytics for privacy-respecting tracking
  6. No visible security headers in HTML but HTTPS and DNSSEC are enabled
  7. No terms of service or security policy pages found
  8. Dark mode toggle implemented for user experience
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a stable and widely used CMS platform, WordPress, with a modern theme and standard plugins. The use of jQuery and Matomo analytics is consistent with common web practices. Performance is moderate with no obvious issues but could benefit from optimization. Mobile responsiveness and accessibility are good, supported by theme defaults and custom CSS. The site lacks advanced SEO metadata like Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data, which could improve search engine visibility. No hosting provider information is explicitly available. The technical debt appears low, but the absence of security headers and cookie consent mechanisms indicates areas for modernization and compliance improvement.
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 schoppe.it. 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 schoppe.it.

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.