Skip to main content

Security report for sigel.eu

SIGEL · Manufacturing · Germany

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

Security score

51/100

Risk levelMedium

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

SIGEL is a medium-sized manufacturing company specializing in innovative office equipment and smart procurement solutions tailored for modern, agile work environments. The company positions itself as a trusted partner for businesses seeking high-quality office products, supported by multiple international design awards and ISO certification. The website is professionally designed using Drupal 11, with strong SEO, accessibility, and multi-language support, reflecting a mature digital presence. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS implementation significantly undermines the site's security posture. While security headers and cookie consent mechanisms are well implemented, the lack of incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies indicates room for improvement in security governance. Overall, the website is trustworthy and professional but requires urgent remediation of its SSL/TLS configuration to ensure secure user interactions.

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

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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.

    • 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

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

Keep watching sigel.eu

This scan found 16 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
0
Security headers
80
Email security
50
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
51

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

SIGEL operates in the manufacturing sector, focusing on office solutions for agile working environments. Its business model includes product manufacturing and distribution through international partnerships. The company leverages its strong brand reputation, evidenced by numerous design awards and certifications, to maintain a competitive edge. The website targets business customers and professionals, offering a comprehensive product catalog and support services. The digital ecosystem integrates advanced marketing and analytics tools, including Google Tag Manager and Usercentrics for consent management, supporting data-driven marketing strategies. The absence of direct contact emails or phone numbers on the site suggests a preference for controlled communication channels via contact forms.

Security posture

The website demonstrates partial adherence to security best practices, including the use of multiple security headers such as Content Security Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection. Cookie consent is managed through reputable third-party services, enhancing privacy compliance. However, the critical lack of a valid SSL certificate and disabled TLS protocols exposes users to significant risks, including data interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. The absence of HSTS enforcement and OCSP stapling further weakens the security posture. No evidence of incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms was found, indicating limited preparedness for security incidents. Immediate action to deploy a valid SSL certificate and enable modern TLS protocols is essential to mitigate these risks.

Recommendations

  1. Acquire and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated protocols.
  3. Implement HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) with includeSubDomains and preload directives.
  4. Establish and publish an incident response and vulnerability disclosure policy to enhance security transparency.
  5. Continue leveraging and updating security headers and consent management tools to maintain compliance and user trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Drupal 11, a modern and robust CMS platform, ensuring a solid foundation for content management and scalability. Integration with Usercentrics and Cookiehub provides advanced cookie consent and privacy management capabilities. The site uses Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics for marketing and analytics, indicating a mature digital marketing strategy. Hosting and DNS are managed through United Domains AG and Cloudflare, providing reliable infrastructure and CDN services. Despite these strengths, the lack of SSL/TLS encryption is a critical technical deficiency that compromises data security and user trust. Performance metrics were not available, but the use of lazy loading and responsive images suggests optimization efforts. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires urgent security upgrades.
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 sigel.eu. 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 sigel.eu.

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.