Skip to main content

Security report for teamnl.org

TeamNL · Government · Netherlands

Low risk. No critical or high findings.

Security score

85/100

Risk levelLow

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

TeamNL.org is a professional website dedicated to showcasing Dutch athletes and sports teams, providing inspirational stories and information about national sports representation. The platform targets sports fans and stakeholders interested in Dutch sports. The website employs modern analytics and marketing technologies such as Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Cookiebot for cookie consent management, indicating a mature digital infrastructure. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and reCAPTCHA implemented, though some security headers could be improved. Privacy compliance is partially met with a detailed cookie consent mechanism but lacks a clearly linked privacy policy. Overall, the site appears trustworthy and professionally managed, though contact and legal information could be more transparent.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

No critical or high findings. These medium findings are worth fixing next.

  1. Security headers

    Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.

    • Medium

      Missing Permissions-Policy header

      Controls browser features and APIs

      What to do: Implement a Permissions-Policy to restrict feature access

      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Permissions-Policy: accelerometer=(), autoplay=(), camera=(), cross-origin-isolated=(),…
  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • Medium

      Privacy policy may not be GDPR compliant

      Privacy policy lacks explicit GDPR compliance elements

      What to do: Update privacy policy to explicitly address GDPR requirements and user rights

  3. 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.

    • Medium

      DMARC not enforcing

      DMARC policy is set to "none"

      What to do: Gradually move to "quarantine" then "reject" policy

    • Medium

      No MTA-STS Policy

      MTA-STS enforces TLS for email delivery

      What to do: Implement MTA-STS to prevent downgrade attacks

  4. DNS health

    DNS sends visitors and email to the right servers. Misconfigured records can cause outages or let someone redirect your traffic.

    • Medium

      DNSSEC Not Enabled

      DNSSEC is not configured for this domain

      What to do: Enable DNSSEC to prevent DNS spoofing attacks

      • CAPEC-142
      • RFC 4033
      • RFC 4035

Keep watching teamnl.org

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. 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
100
Security headers
85
Email security
65
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
83
Average
85

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention teamnl.org, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
74
Employees
0
Customers
74
Third parties
0
Weak passwords
18%

2 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for teamnl.org.

Select it in the checkout above.

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

TeamNL operates as a national sports promotion platform, likely supported by government or sports federations. Its market position is focused on Dutch sports fans and media, providing athlete profiles and team information. The business model centers on information dissemination and brand promotion rather than direct commercial transactions. The use of multiple third-party marketing and analytics tools suggests an emphasis on audience engagement and data-driven insights. The absence of explicit contact details and privacy policy pages may indicate a focus on content delivery over direct customer interaction. The domain's privacy-protected WHOIS data aligns with typical practices for organizations seeking to protect registrant privacy.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a good security baseline with HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms. The use of reCAPTCHA v3 helps mitigate automated abuse. However, the absence of explicit Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options headers suggests room for improvement in defense-in-depth. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analyzed content. The site does not appear to have an incident response or security policy publicly available, which could be enhanced to improve transparency and readiness. Overall, the security posture is adequate for an informational website but could be strengthened to align with best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Publish a comprehensive privacy policy page linked prominently on the website.
  2. Add security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection.
  3. Provide clear contact information including official emails and phone numbers for user support and inquiries.
  4. Implement and publish a security policy and incident response plan to improve transparency and trust.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and cookies to ensure compliance and security.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
TeamNL
Description
TeamNL is a platform providing information about Dutch athletes ('sporters in Oranje'), their teams, and inspirational stories related to sports in the Netherlands.
Key services
Athlete profiles, Team information, Sports news and stories
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Cookiebot, reCAPTCHA v3
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with granular controls
  • Use of reCAPTCHA v3

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Ahrefs Analytics
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Ad networks
Permutive, Eurosport
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Ahrefs Analytics, Cookiebot
Marketing tools
Mailchimp
Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses HTTPS with good security practices
  2. Cookie consent mechanism is implemented with detailed cookie categories
  3. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on the homepage
  4. No privacy policy or terms of service pages explicitly linked or detected
  5. Multiple third-party analytics and marketing tools are used
  6. WHOIS data is not publicly available, indicating privacy protection
  7. No signs of malicious or suspicious content
  8. Content is in Dutch and focused on national sports athletes
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern technology stack including Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, and Cookiebot for analytics and cookie management. It employs reCAPTCHA v3 for bot mitigation. The site is mobile optimized with responsive design and good SEO meta tags. Performance is moderate, with room for optimization. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary platform. Hosting provider details are not disclosed. Accessibility features are basic but present. The site uses multiple external domains for analytics and marketing, which should be monitored for privacy compliance.
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 teamnl.org. 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 teamnl.org.

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.