Skip to main content

Security report for vzwrozemarijn.be

vzw Rozemarijn · Non-profit · Belgium

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers and SSL/TLS.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

vzw Rozemarijn is a Belgian non-profit organization dedicated to providing care and support services for adults with disabilities in the Vlaams-Brabant region, specifically in Keerbergen and Haacht. Their key offerings include day support, residential support, care purchasing, guided work, enclave work, and semi-industrial work, targeting a niche audience requiring specialized assistance. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with clear contact details and structured data enhancing credibility. Technically, the website employs modern JavaScript frameworks such as Vue.js and jQuery, integrates Google Tag Manager for analytics, and uses HTTPS with a cookie consent mechanism, indicating a moderate level of digital maturity. The site is mobile-optimized with good SEO practices but lacks some advanced security headers that could further harden its posture. From a security perspective, the site enforces HTTPS and provides cookie consent aligned with GDPR requirements. However, the absence of explicit security policies, incident response contacts, and vulnerability disclosure mechanisms suggests room for improvement in security transparency and readiness. The WHOIS data is restricted, limiting domain trust verification, but the website content and contact information appear legitimate and consistent with the organization's mission. Overall, the website scores well in content quality, privacy compliance, and business credibility, with moderate technical and security scores. Strategic enhancements in security headers, published policies, and WHOIS transparency would strengthen trust and resilience.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
83/ 100 · Low
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

4 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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"

    • 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';…

  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 vzwrozemarijn.be

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
52
Security headers
40
Email security
70
DNS health
75
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
83
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

vzw Rozemarijn operates as a small-sized non-profit entity focused on disability care services within a localized Belgian market. Its competitive advantage lies in specialized, community-based support services tailored to adults with disabilities. The business model revolves around service provision funded likely through public or private non-profit channels, with a clear target audience of disabled adults and their families. The organization maintains a straightforward partnership ecosystem, including a web development partner (Webhero). Growth indicators are not explicit, but the presence of multiple service offerings and locations suggests stable operations. The website's clear contact points and privacy compliance reflect a mature approach to stakeholder engagement and regulatory adherence.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a baseline security posture with mandatory HTTPS and cookie consent mechanisms in place, supporting GDPR compliance. However, the lack of security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represents a missed opportunity to mitigate common web vulnerabilities. No evidence of exposed sensitive data or vulnerable libraries was found. The absence of a published security policy, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure program limits transparency and preparedness. The WHOIS data restriction raises minor concerns but is not uncommon for privacy reasons. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be significantly improved with additional controls and transparency.

Recommendations

  1. Implement essential security headers (CSP, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a clear security policy and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  3. Establish a vulnerability disclosure program or security.txt file to encourage responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Review WHOIS registration details for greater transparency or justify privacy protection aligned with organizational needs.
  5. Continue maintaining GDPR compliance and consider expanding accessibility features to improve inclusivity.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
vzw Rozemarijn
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
vzw Rozemarijn
Description
Wij organiseren de opvang en begeleiding van volwassen personen met een handicap te Keerbergen en Haacht in de provincie Vlaams-Brabant.
Key services
Dagondersteuning, Woonondersteuning, Zorg inkopen, Begeleid werk, Enclavewerk, Semi-industrieel werk (SIW)
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery, Vue.js, Axios, Google Tag Manager, Material Icons
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • Cookie consent banner implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics via Google Tag Manager
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is restricted and unavailable, limiting domain trust verification.
  3. Clear contact information and structured data enhance trust.
  4. Cookie consent and privacy policy are implemented, indicating GDPR awareness.
  5. No security headers detected; opportunity for security improvements.
  6. Use of modern JavaScript libraries and Google Tag Manager for analytics.
  7. No terms of service or explicit security policies found.
  8. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response info present.
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a modern front-end technology stack including Vue.js for reactive components, jQuery for DOM manipulation, and Axios for HTTP requests. Google Tag Manager is integrated for analytics and marketing tracking. The site loads CSS and JavaScript resources from a CDN (cdn.webhero.be), indicating a managed hosting or platform service. Performance is moderate with good mobile optimization and SEO metadata present. No CMS was explicitly detected, suggesting a custom or proprietary solution. The site lacks advanced accessibility features but provides basic support. Overall, the technical infrastructure is solid but could benefit from enhanced security configurations and performance tuning.
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 vzwrozemarijn.be. 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 vzwrozemarijn.be.

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.