Skip to main content

Security report for thefork.be

Hospitality · Belgium

Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

66/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website thefork.be is currently inaccessible due to a CAPTCHA challenge page indicating the presence of a Web Application Firewall or bot protection mechanism. This prevents direct access to the site's content and limits the ability to perform a full security and compliance analysis. The domain is registered since 2014 with a reputable registrar, suggesting an established presence. The domain name and URL imply a hospitality or restaurant reservation service, but no explicit business information or metadata is available in the provided content. The technical infrastructure includes third-party CAPTCHA services to mitigate automated access. Due to the content block, no privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies are detectable, nor are contact details or social media links. Security posture cannot be fully assessed but the presence of bot protection is a positive indicator. Overall, the site requires manual review with access beyond the WAF to provide a comprehensive evaluation.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
25/ 100 · Critical
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

8 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

  2. 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';…

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

Keep watching thefork.be

This scan found 18 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
82
Security headers
20
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
25
Average
66

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

Based on the domain and limited data, thefork.be likely operates in the hospitality sector, possibly offering restaurant reservations or related services. The domain age supports a mature business. However, no direct business descriptions, contact information, or certifications are found in the accessible content. The lack of visible marketing or analytics tools suggests minimal public-facing tracking or advertising in the blocked content. The business model and market positioning remain unclear due to content inaccessibility.

Security posture

The site employs a CAPTCHA challenge indicating an active security measure against automated threats. However, no security headers or policies are visible in the provided content. The absence of privacy and cookie policies suggests potential compliance gaps with GDPR and related regulations. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is found. The security posture appears minimal but with basic bot protection in place. Further analysis requires access beyond the WAF.

Recommendations

  1. Provide publicly accessible privacy and cookie policies to improve compliance and user trust.
  2. Implement and expose security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Publish contact information including security incident response channels.
  4. Ensure SSL/TLS configuration is strong and enforced site-wide.
  5. Consider providing a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The HTML content is a CAPTCHA challenge page served by captcha-delivery.com indicating a WAF or bot protection mechanism blocking direct content access. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Description
No explicit business description found in the provided content. The domain name and URL suggest a restaurant reservation or hospitality-related service.
Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
captcha-delivery.com script

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 a CAPTCHA challenge, preventing full content analysis.
  2. No metadata, structured data, or business contact information found in the provided HTML.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies detected.
  4. No visible forms or user input fields in the provided content.
  5. External scripts are related to CAPTCHA/bot protection services.
  6. No social media links or emails found.
  7. WHOIS data shows domain registered in 2014 with a reputable registrar.
Technical notes

Notes

The website currently serves a CAPTCHA challenge page from a third-party provider, indicating use of bot mitigation technology. No CMS or frameworks are detectable from the provided content. The hosting provider is unknown. The site lacks visible metadata, structured data, or SEO optimizations in the accessible content. Performance, accessibility, and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to content block. The technical stack appears minimal with reliance on external CAPTCHA services.
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 thefork.be. 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 thefork.be.

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.