Skip to main content

Security report for twinformatics.at

twinformatics GmbH · Technology · Austria

High risk. 6 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

47/100

Risk levelHigh

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

twinformatics GmbH is a medium-sized Austrian IT service provider specializing in software development and operation for major insurance companies such as Wiener Städtische Versicherung AG and Vienna Insurance Group. The company positions itself as a strong IT partner with end-to-end responsibility for innovative software solutions trusted by thousands of users. The website is professionally designed, primarily in German, targeting IT professionals and potential employees. Technically, the site runs on WordPress with modern PHP and uses several plugins for enhanced functionality. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical security gap, despite the presence of HSTS headers. Privacy compliance is well addressed with cookie consent mechanisms and a comprehensive privacy policy. The security posture is basic and requires immediate improvements in SSL/TLS configuration and vulnerability disclosure practices. Overall, the website reflects a credible and professional business but needs technical security enhancements to align with best practices.

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

6 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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  2. SSL/TLS

    TLS encrypts the connection and proves the site is really yours. Weak or expiring certificates trigger browser warnings and put traffic at risk.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. 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 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 twinformatics.at

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
0
Security headers
45
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
47

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

The company operates in the technology sector, focusing on software solutions for the insurance industry. Its business model is B2B, providing tailored software development and operational services. The website content highlights agile development, continuous delivery, and a strong cultural emphasis on respect and collaboration. The firm targets software developers and IT professionals for recruitment, indicating growth and talent acquisition focus. Social media presence and customer references enhance credibility. The hosting and DNS infrastructure suggest a stable Austrian-based environment. No parent or subsidiary companies are indicated, and the domain registration data is consistent with the business claims.

Security posture

The current security maturity is low due to the lack of HTTPS and valid SSL certificates, which exposes users to potential interception risks. While some security headers like HSTS and X-Frame-Options are set, the absence of TLS protocols and strong cipher suites severely weakens the security posture. No incident response or security policy information is publicly available, and no vulnerability disclosure mechanism is found. Cookie consent and privacy policies are well implemented, indicating awareness of GDPR compliance. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS configuration and introduction of security policies are recommended to mitigate risks and improve trust.

Recommendations

  1. Install and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and configure strong cipher suites to secure data in transit.
  3. Implement a publicly accessible security policy and vulnerability disclosure process (e.g., security.txt).
  4. Enhance security headers by adding Content-Security-Policy and other relevant headers.
  5. Regularly audit and update plugins and server software to minimize vulnerabilities.
  6. Maintain and document incident response procedures and contact channels for security issues.
  7. Improve website performance metrics and optimize loading times.
  8. Continue to maintain GDPR compliance and transparency in data collection and user consent.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress 6.8.1 with PHP 8.2.28 running on an Apache server. It uses modern block editor plugins such as Essential Blocks and Superb Blocks, and integrates Google Tag Manager and Cookiebot for analytics and cookie consent management. DNS is managed via A1 Telekom Austria nameservers, indicating local hosting. However, performance data is missing or zero, suggesting slow loading or measurement issues. Mobile optimization is good, and accessibility is basic but present. SEO is basic with meta tags and structured navigation. The lack of SSL/TLS is a major technical risk. The site uses multiple external resources including Google Fonts and Font Awesome. Overall, the technical infrastructure is modern but requires urgent security upgrades.
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 twinformatics.at. 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 twinformatics.at.

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.