Skip to main content

Security report for vikings.net

# vikings · Technology · N/a

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

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website vikings.net represents a small technology service provider specializing in Linux and BSD environments. The company offers a range of services including support, consulting, hosting, email platform management, DNS services, IPv6 migration, and IT operations. Their business model emphasizes independence from large technology corporations by promoting free and open source software solutions. The domain is well-established, having been registered since 2000, which supports the credibility of the business. From a technical perspective, the website is built with standard HTML5 and CSS, includes proper meta tags for SEO and social sharing, and offers a basic but clear navigation structure. The site is moderately optimized for performance and mobile devices but lacks advanced frameworks or CMS platforms. Hosting appears to be managed by the registrar, Vautron Rechenzentrum AG, indicating a stable infrastructure. Security posture is moderate; while the company emphasizes security in its service offerings and uses modern email authentication methods (DKIM, DMARC, SPF), the website itself lacks security headers and DNSSEC is not enabled. No privacy or cookie policies are published, which is a compliance gap. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure information is available. No tracking or advertising scripts are detected, suggesting a privacy-conscious approach. Overall, vikings.net is a trustworthy and professional website with a clear business focus and stable domain history. Improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and published policies would enhance trust and security posture further.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
50/ 100 · Medium
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.

    • 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. 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.

    • High

      Weak Protocols Supported

      Server supports weak protocols: TLSv1.1

      What to do: Disable TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1, and all SSL versions

      • CWE-327
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • ASVS V12.1.1
    • High

      Weak SSL Key Length

      SSL certificate uses 256-bit key, which is considered weak

      What to do: Use at least 2048-bit RSA or 256-bit ECC key

      • CWE-326
      • OWASP A04:2025
      • Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: rsa_key_size 2048

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

Keep watching vikings.net

This scan found 19 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
52
Security headers
85
Email security
70
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
50
Average
60

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 positions itself as a niche provider in the Linux and BSD technology sector, targeting companies and public authorities seeking independence from large tech ecosystems. Their competitive advantage lies in transparency, use of open source tools, and comprehensive service offerings from consulting to hosting and IT operations. The business model is service-oriented with revenue likely derived from consulting, support contracts, and hosting fees. The absence of advertising and tracking indicates a focus on quality client relationships rather than volume marketing. The company appears small but established, with a consistent brand and messaging. No partnerships or subsidiaries are publicly indicated, suggesting a focused and independent operation.

Security posture

Security maturity is moderate. The company demonstrates awareness of security best practices in its service descriptions, particularly in email security and network protection. However, the website lacks implementation of common security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options) and DNSSEC is not enabled, which could expose users to certain risks. No explicit security policy or incident response contacts are published, limiting transparency in security governance. The absence of privacy and cookie policies also indicates incomplete compliance with GDPR and related regulations. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a small service provider but could be improved to meet higher standards.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC on the domain to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies to improve GDPR compliance and user trust.
  3. Implement standard security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, and X-Frame-Options.
  4. Add a dedicated security policy page including incident response contacts to improve transparency and preparedness.
  5. Consider adding phone contact information and physical address to enhance business credibility and customer trust.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
# vikings
Description
# vikings specialises in fast and effective solutions for Linux and BSD environments, providing support, consulting, development services, hosting, email, DNS, IPv6 transition, and IT operations. They emphasize independence from big tech and promote free/libre and open source software.
Key services
Linux and BSD support and consulting, Hosting and colocation (containers, VPS, bare metal), Email platform design and support, DNS services, IPv6 migration planning, Purchase department and desktop IT operations
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
HTML5, CSS (original.min.css), Open Graph meta tags, Twitter Cards meta tags, RSS feed
Performance
moderate
Mobile
basic
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Emphasis on security in service descriptions
  • Use of DKIM, DMARC, SPF for email

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Transparency
poor

Site quality

Design
good
User experience
good
Content relevance
good
Navigation
good
Professionalism
good
Trustworthiness
high

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible with full content and no blocking detected.
  2. No privacy or cookie policies found, which is a compliance gap.
  3. Contact information limited to email only; no phone or physical address provided.
  4. No security policy or incident response information published.
  5. No analytics or tracking scripts detected, indicating privacy-conscious approach.
  6. Website emphasizes open source and independence from big tech.
  7. Domain is stable and long-standing, registered since 2000.
  8. No signs of suspicious or malicious content.
  9. Site uses minimal external dependencies and no advertising.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a simple and clean technical stack based on HTML5 and CSS with no heavy frameworks or CMS detected. Meta tags for SEO and social sharing are properly implemented, including Open Graph and Twitter Cards. The site includes an RSS feed for content syndication. Hosting is likely provided by the registrar, Vautron Rechenzentrum AG, indicating a stable and professional hosting environment. Performance is moderate with basic mobile optimization and accessibility features. No analytics or tracking scripts were found, which reduces privacy concerns but limits marketing insights. The site could benefit from modernizing with additional accessibility and performance enhancements and implementing security best practices such as security headers and DNSSEC.
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 vikings.net. 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 vikings.net.

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.