Skip to main content

Security report for washilft.org

Zartbitter e.V. Köln · Non-profit · Germany

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

65/100

Risk levelMedium

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

WAS HILFT is a German non-profit project operated by Zartbitter e.V. Köln, dedicated to combating sexual violence through education, support, and awareness. The website offers multimedia content, legal information, and prevention theater aimed primarily at youth and their social circles. The project is funded by governmental and city institutions, reinforcing its legitimacy and trustworthiness. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with common plugins and demonstrates good mobile optimization and user experience. Security posture is adequate with HTTPS and cookie consent implemented, though improvements such as enabling DNSSEC and security headers are recommended. Privacy compliance is strong, with a comprehensive privacy policy and cookie management in place. Overall, the website is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
80/ 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

3 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 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. GDPR outside view

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

    • 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

  3. 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

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

Keep watching washilft.org

This scan found 20 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
62
Security headers
70
Email security
70
DNS health
70
Network security
40
GDPR outside view
80
Average
65

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 organization operates in the non-profit sector focusing on sexual violence prevention and youth education. Its market position is niche but important, supported by government funding and partnerships. The business model centers on educational outreach and support services rather than commercial revenue. The website content and structure reflect a clear mission and target audience, with consistent branding and trust signals such as official contact information and funding acknowledgments. Growth potential lies in expanding educational resources and outreach programs. The partnership ecosystem includes local government and specialized support organizations.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS and a cookie consent mechanism, indicating awareness of basic security and privacy requirements. However, the absence of DNSSEC and security headers like Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options suggests room for improvement. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the analysis. Incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies are not published, which could be enhanced to improve security maturity. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could benefit from adopting additional best practices and transparency measures.

Recommendations

  1. Enable DNSSEC to enhance DNS security and prevent spoofing.
  2. Implement security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  3. Publish a security.txt file to facilitate responsible vulnerability disclosure.
  4. Regularly audit and update WordPress core, themes, and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Enhance accessibility features to improve inclusivity and compliance.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Legal name
Zartbitter e.V. Köln
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Zartbitter e.V. Köln
Description
WAS HILFT is a project by Zartbitter e.V. Köln focused on providing information, resources, and support against sexual violence, especially targeting youth and their friends. It offers educational content, prevention theater, legal information, and multimedia resources.
Key services
Educational multimedia content, Prevention theater, Legal information, Support resources
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, WPBakery Page Builder, Slider Revolution, jQuery, Borlabs Cookie
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
basic

Security

Observed score
75/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent banner implemented

Analytics and tracking

Tracking level
minimal
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 a German non-profit project focused on sexual violence prevention and support.
  2. Content is in German language with clear navigation and multiple multimedia resources.
  3. Cookie consent and privacy policy are implemented and GDPR compliant.
  4. No security headers detected; DNSSEC not enabled.
  5. No contact forms detected on homepage; contact info provided in footer and imprint.
  6. Social media presence includes Twitter and YouTube for Zartbitter e.V.
  7. No signs of adult or explicit content; content is safe for general audiences.
  8. Website uses WordPress CMS with common plugins and themes.
  9. No evidence of vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies published.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS using WPBakery Page Builder and Slider Revolution plugins, with jQuery as a JavaScript library. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified but the domain registrar is NameCheap, Inc. Performance is moderate with good mobile responsiveness. SEO is basic with meta tags and Open Graph tags present but no advanced structured data detected. Accessibility is basic and could be improved. The site uses Borlabs Cookie plugin for GDPR-compliant cookie management. No advanced frameworks or headless CMS architectures are detected. Technical risks include missing DNSSEC and security headers, which are recommended for mitigation.
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 washilft.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 washilft.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.