Skip to main content

Security report for tem-forum.org

Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

TEM Forum is a niche community platform dedicated to unifying and promoting Traditional European Medicine. The website serves as an informational and community hub for practitioners and supporters of this traditional medicinal practice. The platform uses WordPress with the Divi theme and WooCommerce plugin, indicating a modern but standard CMS infrastructure. Hosting and DNS services are provided by InterNetX GmbH and Cloudflare respectively, ensuring basic reliability and security. However, the website lacks explicit privacy and terms of service policies, which impacts its compliance posture. Security practices are basic with HTTPS enabled but missing DNSSEC and security headers. Overall, the site is functional and professionally designed but would benefit from enhanced privacy and security measures.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 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

7 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  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.

    • High

      Missing Strict-Transport-Security header

      Forces HTTPS connections

      What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"

      • CWE-319
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V3.4.1
    • High

      Missing X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • High

      Missing Content-Security-Policy header

      Controls resources the browser is allowed to load

      What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application

      • ASVS V3.4.3
      • OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends Content-Security-Policy: default-src 'self'; form-action 'self'; base-uri 'self'; object-src 'none';…

  2. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

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

Keep watching tem-forum.org

This scan found 22 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
75
Security headers
15
Email security
70
DNS health
80
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
50
Average
65

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 tem-forum.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for tem-forum.org right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

Monitor on Breach (opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

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

Business context

Business profile

The business operates in the traditional medicine sector, targeting a specialized audience interested in European traditional healing methods. The model appears to be community and information driven, possibly non-profit or membership-based. The domain age and registration details align with a recently established organization. The lack of explicit contact information and certifications suggests a small-scale operation. Marketing tools like MailerLite are used for outreach. The website supports multiple languages, indicating an international or European audience focus. No direct revenue streams or partnerships were identified in the provided data.

Security posture

The website has a basic security posture with HTTPS enabled and domain transfer protection set. However, DNSSEC is not enabled, and no advanced security headers were detected, which could expose the site to certain DNS and web-based attacks. No incident response or security policy information is publicly available, which may hinder rapid response to security events. The absence of vulnerability disclosure or security.txt files limits transparency. The use of common CMS and plugins requires diligent patching to avoid vulnerabilities. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved with standard best practices.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish a comprehensive privacy policy and terms of service to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  3. Add standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Publish a security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Regularly audit and update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Description
TEM Forum is a platform focused on unifying Traditional European Medicine. The website appears to be informational and community-oriented, targeting practitioners and supporters of traditional European medicinal practices.
Key services
Information dissemination, Community forum, Educational resources
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Divi Theme, WooCommerce, Cloudflare DNS
Frameworks
Divi
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Domain status clientTransferProhibited

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
mailerlite.com
Marketing tools
MailerLite
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website uses WordPress with Divi theme and WooCommerce plugin.
  2. No explicit privacy policy or terms of service found on the main page or linked resources.
  3. Cookie consent mechanism is present via a plugin.
  4. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found in the provided HTML snippet.
  5. No security.txt or vulnerability disclosure policy detected.
  6. No incident response or security policy information found.
  7. No certifications or trust badges visible.
  8. Website content is in German with multilingual support via hreflang tags.
  9. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
  10. No WAF or blocking mechanisms detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress using the Divi theme and WooCommerce plugin, indicating a flexible and widely supported platform. The site uses Cloudflare for DNS, which can provide performance and security benefits. The site is mobile optimized and has good SEO practices with hreflang tags for multilingual support. Performance is moderate, likely due to the use of a feature-rich theme and plugins. Accessibility is basic, with room for improvement in ARIA roles and semantic markup. No major technical debt or deprecated technologies were detected. The site would benefit from enhanced security configurations and performance optimizations.
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 tem-forum.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 tem-forum.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.