Skip to main content

Security report for team-rottensteiner.com

Other · N/a

Partial score · DNS & email only

59/100

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

The website team-rottensteiner.com currently serves a 404 Not Found error page, indicating that the site content is inaccessible or missing. There is no visible business information, contact details, or policy documents available on the site. The technical infrastructure shows the use of Phusion Passenger as the application server, but the site lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not support any TLS protocols, resulting in an insecure connection. Security headers are partially implemented but limited by the absence of HTTPS. Overall, the website's digital maturity is low, with poor performance, minimal content, and no evident SEO or accessibility features. The security posture is weak due to the lack of HTTPS and modern cryptographic protocols, exposing visitors to potential risks. Given these factors, the site presents a high risk from a security and trust perspective, and strategic improvements are necessary to establish a secure and professional online presence.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

Checks completed
5of 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

1 finding rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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 team-rottensteiner.com

This scan found 5 issues across 4 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
0
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
Average
59

Not counted

  • Security headers: did not complete in this scan.
  • GDPR outside view: 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 absence of accessible content and business information, it is not possible to determine the company's market position, business model, or key services. The domain is registered and has standard DNS records including an Outlook mail exchange, suggesting some operational email infrastructure. However, no partnerships, subsidiaries, or related domains are identified. The lack of privacy policies, contact information, and certifications further limits the ability to assess business credibility or growth indicators. The domain appears to be underutilized or possibly abandoned, which negatively impacts its competitive standing and market presence.

Security posture

The current security posture is poor. The website does not have a valid SSL certificate, and no TLS protocols are enabled, resulting in unencrypted HTTP traffic. Although some security headers such as HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options are present, their effectiveness is undermined by the lack of HTTPS. No vulnerability disclosures, incident response contacts, or security policies are found. The absence of session resumption, OCSP stapling, and certificate transparency compliance further weakens the security stance. These deficiencies expose the site and its users to potential interception and man-in-the-middle attacks. Immediate remediation is required to secure the site and comply with modern security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and strong cipher suites to secure communications.
  3. Develop and publish privacy, cookie, and terms of service policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  4. Add clear contact information including email and phone numbers to enhance business credibility.
  5. Implement security best practices such as enabling X-XSS-Protection header and OCSP stapling.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on a server running Phusion Passenger, but no CMS or frontend frameworks are detected. The site returns a minimal 404 error page with no external scripts, analytics, or advertising technologies. Performance data indicates no resources loaded and zero page size, confirming the absence of content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are poor due to the lack of content and responsive design elements. DNS records are standard but lack DNSSEC and CAA records, which could improve domain security. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified beyond the IP address. Overall, the technical implementation is minimal and requires significant development to meet modern web standards.
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 team-rottensteiner.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 team-rottensteiner.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.