Skip to main content

Security report for studiolenzing.com

Studio Lenzing · Technology · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Email security and 1 other check.

Security score

67/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Studio Lenzing is a small, internationally operating interactive design studio specializing in user experience, UX strategy, interactive design, and production services. The company targets brands and businesses seeking premium digital product design and has a strong portfolio with notable clients. The website is professionally designed, mobile-optimized, and uses modern web technologies including Webflow, Vimeo, GSAP, and Pirsch Analytics. Security posture is good with HTTPS and no exposed sensitive data, but lacks some security headers and formal security policies. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. WHOIS data is missing, which slightly reduces trust but the website content and branding indicate a legitimate business. Overall, the site is high quality with good user experience and technical implementation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 100 · Medium
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. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  3. 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 studiolenzing.com

This scan found 25 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
60
Email security
35
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
67

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

Studio Lenzing positions itself as a premium design partner for digital products, working internationally with clients in technology and real estate sectors. Their business model is service-based, focusing on UX and interactive design. The company showcases a strong client portfolio and social media presence, indicating active market engagement. The absence of WHOIS data is unusual but may be due to privacy protection or domain registration issues. The company leverages modern web technologies and analytics to optimize user experience and track engagement. Growth indicators include recent projects and active blog updates. Strategic partnerships or subsidiaries are not evident.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS with a valid SSL configuration, uses iframe sandboxing for embedded videos, and does not expose sensitive data in the HTML. However, it lacks important security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, which could mitigate certain web attacks. There is no visible security policy or incident response information, which is a gap in transparency and preparedness. No vulnerability disclosure or security.txt file is present. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy but no cookie consent mechanism. Overall, the security posture is good but could be improved by implementing recommended headers, formal policies, and user consent mechanisms.

Recommendations

  1. Implement Content-Security-Policy and other security headers to enhance protection against XSS and clickjacking.
  2. Add a cookie consent banner to comply fully with GDPR and other privacy regulations.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan on the website to improve transparency and trust.
  4. Consider establishing a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are used.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Studio Lenzing
Description
Studio Lenzing is an interactive design studio focused on crafting better experiences for brands and for people.
Key services
User Experience, UX Strategy, Interactive Design, Production
Content quality
excellent
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Webflow, Vimeo Player, GSAP, jQuery, Anime.js, Pirsch Analytics
Performance
fast
Mobile
excellent
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of iframe sandboxing for videos

Analytics and tracking

Services
Pirsch Analytics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Pirsch Analytics
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich multimedia content
  2. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms
  3. Professional design and UX focus
  4. No visible security policy or incident response info
  5. WHOIS data missing, which is unusual for a .com domain
  6. Contact info includes company email and contact form
  7. Social media presence on Instagram, Twitter, Read.cv, Spotify
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on Webflow CMS, leveraging modern JavaScript libraries such as GSAP for animations, Vimeo Player API for video content, Anime.js for UI effects, and Pirsch Analytics for user tracking. Hosting is via AWS Cloudfront CDN, ensuring fast content delivery. The site is mobile-optimized with responsive design and good accessibility features. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The technical implementation is modern and performant, with no broken elements detected. Opportunities exist to improve security headers and privacy mechanisms to reduce technical risks.
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 studiolenzing.com. 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 studiolenzing.com.

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.