Skip to main content

Security report for ticketmaster.dk

Other · Denmark

Medium risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

58/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.ticketmaster.dk is currently inaccessible due to a security challenge page that blocks normal browsing activity. This page is designed to verify user identity and prevent automated or suspicious access, employing Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise and other JavaScript-based checks. Due to this blocking, no meaningful content or business information is accessible for analysis. The WHOIS data for the domain is unavailable from the Danish WHOIS server, limiting insights into domain registration details and ownership. The lack of visible privacy policies, contact information, or terms of service further restricts assessment of compliance and trustworthiness. Technically, the site uses modern Google services such as reCAPTCHA Enterprise and Google Tag Manager, indicating some level of digital maturity. However, the absence of security headers and visible SSL configuration details in the provided data limits evaluation of the security posture. The blocking mechanism itself is a security feature but also prevents full content access and analysis. From a security perspective, the site demonstrates a proactive approach to mitigating automated abuse or suspicious activity, but the lack of accessible policies and contact information reduces transparency and user trust. The domain's legitimacy is presumed given the Ticketmaster brand, but the missing WHOIS data and blocking page reduce confidence scores. Overall, the site is currently in a blocked state preventing comprehensive analysis. Strategic recommendations include improving WHOIS transparency, publishing clear privacy and cookie policies, providing contact and incident response information, and ensuring security headers and SSL configurations are properly implemented to enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
10/ 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

10 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 ticketmaster.dk

This scan found 26 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
15
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
10
Average
58

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

Ticketmaster.dk is presumably the Danish localized website of Ticketmaster, a global ticket sales and distribution company. The business model revolves around e-commerce ticket sales for events, concerts, and entertainment. The target audience includes event attendees and consumers in Denmark. The company likely operates as part of a larger corporate group with a strong market position in ticketing services. However, no direct business details, subsidiaries, or partnerships are visible due to the blocked content. The website likely generates revenue through ticket sales and service fees. The presence of Google Tag Manager indicates use of analytics and marketing tools to optimize customer engagement. The blocking page suggests a focus on security and fraud prevention in their digital operations.

Security posture

The website employs Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise to mitigate automated abuse and suspicious activity, indicating a mature security control for bot mitigation. However, the absence of visible security headers and lack of accessible privacy and incident response policies reduce the overall security transparency. The blocking page itself is a security feature but also limits user access and trust. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the provided content, but the inability to access the full site prevents a thorough security assessment. Compliance with GDPR or other data protection regulations cannot be confirmed due to missing policy documents. Incident response contact channels are not provided, which is a gap in security readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive WHOIS data or ensure domain registration transparency to improve trust.
  2. Make privacy policy, cookie policy, and terms of service clearly accessible on the website.
  3. Implement and expose standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and Strict-Transport-Security.
  4. Provide clear contact information including security incident response and data protection officer contacts.
  5. Optimize site accessibility by reducing blocking mechanisms where possible to improve user experience and analysis capability.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Generic detected. The website content is a security challenge page indicating unusual browsing behavior and blocking access. It uses JavaScript challenges and Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise to verify identity. These observations may be incomplete. For a fuller analysis, contact guard@offseq.com.

Business

Content quality
poor

Technology

Stack
JavaScript, Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise, Google Tag Manager
SEO
poor

Security

Observed score
20/100

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise
Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
poor
User experience
poor
Content relevance
poor
Navigation
poor
Professionalism
poor
Trustworthiness
low

Key observations

  1. Website is currently blocked by a security mechanism requiring identity verification.
  2. No WHOIS data available from the DK WHOIS server for this domain.
  3. No privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found in the provided HTML content.
  4. No contact information or business details are present on the page.
  5. The page uses Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise and Google Tag Manager scripts.
  6. No forms or data collection fields are visible due to blocking.
  7. No social media or external business-related links found in the content.
  8. The site is likely a legitimate ticketing platform but analysis is limited due to blocking.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses JavaScript heavily, including Google reCAPTCHA Enterprise and Google Tag Manager scripts, indicating integration with modern tracking and security technologies. The HTML content is minimal and primarily serves a security challenge page rather than business content. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible from the provided data. The site uses meta tags to prevent indexing (noindex, nofollow) and disables caching, consistent with a security challenge page. Performance and mobile optimization cannot be assessed due to lack of full content. The technical implementation focuses on security blocking rather than content delivery, which impacts overall site usability and SEO.
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 ticketmaster.dk. 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 ticketmaster.dk.

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.