Skip to main content

Security report for verticalfarminstitute.org

Verticalfarminstitute · Real Estate · Austria

High risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

38/100

Risk levelHigh

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

The Vertical Farm Institute is a specialized research and consulting organization based in Austria, focusing on urban indoor food production and vertical farming. The website presents a mature and consistent business presence with a clear focus on sustainability, urban agriculture, and innovative building typologies. Their services include feasibility studies, research projects, and dissemination of knowledge through journals and social media channels. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with popular plugins for SEO, multilingual support, and form handling, but lacks a valid SSL certificate, which is a critical security gap. The security posture is basic with some security headers present but no HTTPS, no modern TLS protocols, and no advanced security features enabled. Privacy compliance is good with clear privacy and cookie policies and GDPR adherence. Overall, the website is professional and trustworthy but must urgently address the lack of HTTPS to improve security and user trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of verticalfarminstitute.org. View the latest report

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

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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 verticalfarminstitute.org

This scan found 17 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
0
Security headers
55
Email security
50
DNS health
80
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
0
Average
38

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 verticalfarminstitute.org, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for verticalfarminstitute.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 institute occupies a niche market in vertical farming and urban agriculture, targeting real estate developers, architects, investors, and urban planners. Their business model revolves around research partnerships, consulting, and knowledge dissemination. The domain age and registrant information align well with the business claims, indicating legitimacy and stability. The organization leverages international projects such as Horizon 2020 and euPOLIS, enhancing its credibility and network. The website content is relevant and well-maintained, supporting their position as a thought leader in this emerging sector.

Security posture

The current security posture is weak due to the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support, exposing users to potential data interception risks. While some security headers like X-Content-Type-Options and X-Frame-Options are implemented, the lack of TLS protocols and HSTS reduces overall security. Forms use Google reCAPTCHA to mitigate spam, but no incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are evident. Immediate remediation of SSL/TLS issues is critical to protect user data and improve compliance.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy 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 HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload options.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to enhance security and performance.
  4. Add a terms of service page and a security policy to improve transparency and compliance.
  5. Establish an incident response contact channel (e.g., security@ or abuse@ email) and publish a vulnerability disclosure policy.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Verticalfarminstitute
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a mature WordPress CMS with popular plugins such as Yoast SEO, WPBakery Page Builder, Slider Revolution, Contact Form 7, and WPML for multilingual support. The hosting environment is Apache-based with DNS managed by ns1.d41.at and related name servers. Performance data is missing, indicating potential optimization opportunities. The site is mobile-optimized and SEO-friendly with proper meta tags and structured data. However, the lack of HTTPS and modern security configurations represents a significant technical risk. The site would benefit from performance monitoring and accessibility improvements.
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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 38/100High25 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with verticalfarminstitute.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 verticalfarminstitute.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.