Skip to main content

Security report for visitdrenthe.com

Stichting Marketing Drenthe · Hospitality · Netherlands

Medium risk. 5 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

73/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The website www.visitdrenthe.com serves as a regional tourism promotion platform for the province of Drenthe in the Netherlands, operated by Stichting Marketing Drenthe. It provides comprehensive information about natural parks, cultural heritage, accommodations, and activities targeting tourists and visitors interested in leisure and nature experiences. The site is professionally designed with good navigation, mobile optimization, and relevant content tailored to its audience. Technically, the site employs modern web technologies including Google Tag Manager, Vimeo video embeds, and a carousel library, ensuring a moderate to good performance and accessibility. Security-wise, the site enforces HTTPS and uses a cookie consent mechanism with granular controls, but lacks visible security headers and explicit security policies or incident response contacts. The WHOIS data is missing or unavailable, which raises some concerns about domain registration legitimacy despite the professional appearance and content quality. Overall, the site is trustworthy and functional but would benefit from improved transparency in domain registration and enhanced security headers.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
68/ 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

5 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  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"

  3. GDPR outside view

    These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.

    • 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

  4. 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 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 visitdrenthe.com

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. 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
75
Security headers
80
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
68
Average
73

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 business operates as a regional tourism marketing organization promoting Drenthe as a travel destination. Its market position is that of an official regional authority with a focus on hospitality and leisure sectors. The business model revolves around destination marketing, providing information and inspiration to tourists, and facilitating accommodation and activity bookings indirectly. The target customers include families, couples, solo travelers, and groups interested in nature, culture, and outdoor activities. The organization leverages partnerships with local accommodation providers and cultural institutions, as indicated by linked partner domains. Growth indicators include multilingual support and active content updates. The absence of direct contact information on the homepage suggests a focus on information dissemination rather than direct sales or customer service.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate security posture with HTTPS enforced and a cookie consent banner that respects user privacy preferences. Google Tag Manager is configured to deny ad personalization and analytics storage by default, indicating privacy-conscious tracking. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy and absence of published security policies or incident response contacts limit the security maturity. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The missing WHOIS data is a concern for domain legitimacy and trust. Overall, the security posture is adequate for a tourism information site but could be improved with additional security best practices and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and publish standard security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and provide incident response contact information to improve transparency and trust.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Verify and update WHOIS registration information to ensure domain legitimacy and improve trustworthiness.
  5. Include clear contact information such as official emails and phone numbers to enhance business credibility and user support.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Stichting Marketing Drenthe
Description
The website promotes tourism in the province of Drenthe, highlighting natural landscapes, national parks, cultural heritage, accommodations, and activities for visitors.
Key services
Tourism information, Accommodation listings, Activity and event promotion, Cultural heritage promotion
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Tag Manager, Vimeo video embeds, Splide.js carousel, Custom JavaScript bundles, Woff2 web fonts
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
85/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner with granular consent options
  • Google Tag Manager configured with consent defaults denying ad and analytics storage except security storage

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
good

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with rich content about tourism in Drenthe.
  2. No contact emails or phone numbers explicitly found on the homepage.
  3. Cookie consent banner present with granular consent options.
  4. No visible security.txt or vulnerability disclosure information.
  5. No explicit security policy or incident response contacts found.
  6. WHOIS data is missing or domain appears unregistered in the raw WHOIS output.
  7. Website uses HTTPS and modern web technologies.
  8. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end stack with asynchronous loading of JavaScript bundles, web fonts in WOFF2 format, and multimedia content embedded via Vimeo. Google Tag Manager is used for analytics and marketing tags with consent management integrated. The site is responsive and optimized for mobile devices with good accessibility features such as skip links and ARIA attributes. Performance is moderate with some large images but overall good structure. No CMS or hosting provider information was detected. The site lacks visible server security headers which could be improved. The domain's WHOIS data is missing, which may indicate privacy protection or a recent registration. No signs of WAF or blocking mechanisms were found, allowing full content access.
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 visitdrenthe.com. 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 visitdrenthe.com.

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.