Skip to main content

Security report for stadtwerke-neuburg.de

Energy · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

55/100

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

The website stadtwerke-neuburg.de is currently inaccessible due to a security block enforced by the Wordfence plugin, which restricts access from the visitor's area for security reasons. The site appears to be a WordPress-based platform protected by Wordfence, but no business-specific content, contact information, or policies are accessible for analysis. The domain WHOIS data is minimal, showing standard name servers but lacking detailed registrant information. Due to the block, the technical infrastructure and digital maturity cannot be fully assessed. Security posture is partially indicated by the use of Wordfence, but no further security headers or SSL details are available. Overall, the site’s risk assessment is limited by the lack of accessible content, and strategic recommendations focus on improving transparency, accessibility, and security documentation once access is restored.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
Checks completed
6of 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 Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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. 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 stadtwerke-neuburg.de

This scan found 15 issues across 5 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
95
Email security
70
DNS health
65
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
25
Average
55

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • 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 security block, no direct business intelligence data such as company name, market position, or service offerings can be extracted. The domain name and WHOIS data suggest the site is related to the energy sector, likely a municipal utility provider. No partnership or subsidiary domains were identified. The lack of visible contact or policy information limits assessment of business credibility and customer engagement strategies.

Security posture

The site employs Wordfence, a widely used WordPress security plugin, indicating an active approach to security management. However, the absence of visible security headers, SSL configuration details, and incident response contacts limits the evaluation of comprehensive security maturity. The block page itself is a security control but also restricts legitimate access, which may impact user experience and trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content.

Recommendations

  1. Restore access to at least a basic informational landing page to improve user experience and trust.
  2. Publish clear privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to enhance compliance and transparency.
  3. Implement and verify HTTPS with strong SSL/TLS configuration and security headers.
  4. Provide visible contact information including security incident response channels.
  5. Regularly review and update security configurations to balance protection and accessibility.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Wordfence detected. The page is a Wordfence security block page indicating access is limited by the site owner for security reasons. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Wordfence

Security

Good practices seen
  • Use of Wordfence security plugin

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is blocked by Wordfence security plugin with HTTP 503 response.
  2. No visible business or contact information on the page.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  4. No analytics or advertising scripts detected.
  5. No social media or contact emails/phone numbers found.
  6. The domain WHOIS data is minimal but shows standard name servers.
  7. The site appears to be a WordPress site protected by Wordfence.
  8. No SEO or accessibility features can be assessed due to block page.
  9. No security headers or SSL configuration details available from provided data.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress and protected by the Wordfence security plugin. The block page is styled with custom CSS and includes a form for WordPress administrators to regain access via email. No external analytics, advertising, or tracking scripts were detected. The WHOIS data shows standard name servers but lacks detailed registrant information. Performance, mobile optimization, and SEO cannot be assessed due to the block page. The site currently lacks visible metadata such as Open Graph or JSON-LD structured data.
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 stadtwerke-neuburg.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 stadtwerke-neuburg.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.