Skip to main content

Security report for travelcollege.nl

reiswerk · Other · N/a

Medium risk. 7 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 identity.onlineacademy.nl with the company parameter 'reiswerk' appears to be a minimalistic web presence focused on identity or authentication services, as suggested by the page title 'Identity Governor'. The site lacks substantive content, business descriptions, or visible contact information, which limits the ability to fully assess the business model or market position. Technically, the site uses modern JavaScript modules and integrates Google reCAPTCHA v3 for bot protection, indicating some level of security awareness. However, the absence of privacy policies, cookie consent mechanisms, and security headers suggests immature compliance and security posture. The domain's WHOIS data is privacy protected, which is common but reduces transparency and trust. Overall, the site is accessible without WAF blocking but provides minimal information and limited trust signals.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

7 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

    • 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

    • High

      No Cookie Consent Banner found

      GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies

      What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit

  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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

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

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

Keep watching travelcollege.nl

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. 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
77
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
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

Due to the lack of visible business information, the company 'reiswerk' cannot be profiled in detail. The site does not disclose its industry sector, size, or operational details. The minimal content and absence of marketing or contact details suggest a small or internal-facing service rather than a public-facing commercial entity. No partnerships or subsidiaries are indicated. The business model and revenue streams are not discernible from the available data.

Security posture

The security posture is basic. The presence of Google reCAPTCHA v3 is a positive indicator for bot mitigation. However, the lack of visible security headers, absence of privacy and cookie policies, and no incident response or vulnerability disclosure information highlight significant compliance and security gaps. The site does not demonstrate GDPR compliance or provide data protection officer contact details. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the limited content. Overall, the security maturity is low to moderate with room for significant improvement.

Recommendations

  1. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with GDPR compliance details.
  2. Implement and enforce security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Add clear contact information including support and security incident contacts.
  4. Improve website content to include business descriptions and trust indicators.
  5. Conduct a security audit to identify and remediate potential vulnerabilities and improve compliance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
reiswerk
Content quality
poor
Branding
moderate

Technology

Stack
JavaScript ES Modules, Google reCAPTCHA v3, Google Fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
poor

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Google reCAPTCHA
Transparency
poor

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website content is minimal with only a single div and scripts loaded.
  2. No visible privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found.
  3. No contact information or forms detected.
  4. Uses Google reCAPTCHA v3 indicating some security awareness.
  5. No SEO or accessibility meta tags present.
  6. No visible business description or branding beyond the page title.
  7. No external business-related links except for fonts and Google reCAPTCHA.
  8. No security headers or SSL configuration data provided.
  9. WHOIS data is privacy protected, limiting trust assessment.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses modern JavaScript ES modules and loads Google Fonts and Google reCAPTCHA v3 scripts, indicating a contemporary front-end approach. However, the HTML content is minimal, lacking meta tags for SEO or accessibility. No CMS or hosting provider information is discernible. Performance is likely moderate given minimal content but could be improved with better optimization and richer content. Mobile optimization and accessibility are basic due to lack of semantic HTML and ARIA attributes. The absence of security headers and SSL configuration details suggests technical debt in security implementation.
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 travelcollege.nl. 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 travelcollege.nl.

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.