Security report for wearejohan.nl
We Are Johan · Media · Netherlands
Medium risk. 8 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.
We Are Johan is a small independent advertising agency based in the Netherlands, serving clients in the Netherlands, Belgium, and internationally. The company focuses on providing simple, creative, and effective advertising solutions including concept development, art direction, online marketing, and advertising campaigns. Their market position is that of a boutique agency with a strong creative approach. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand image with good content quality and clear navigation. Technically, the website is built on the Webflow platform, utilizing modern web technologies such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA, and Typekit fonts. The site is mobile optimized and performs moderately well, though there is room for improvement in accessibility and SEO. Hosting is provided by Webflow, ensuring reliable infrastructure. From a security perspective, the website uses HTTPS with excellent SSL configuration and includes reCAPTCHA for form protection. However, it lacks important security headers and does not implement privacy best practices such as IP anonymization in analytics or explicit privacy and cookie policies. There is no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure information, which could be improved to enhance trust and compliance. Overall, the website is safe and professional, with no adult or questionable content detected. The domain registration data is consistent with the business claims, indicating legitimacy. Strategic improvements in privacy compliance, security headers, and transparency would strengthen the security posture and user trust.
Scanned
NIS2 and GDPR posture
- GDPR outside view
- 33/ 100 · High
- Checks completed
- 7of 7
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
- (a) Risk analysis and security policies: Not visible from outside
- (b) Incident handling: One indicator
- (c) Business continuity, backups and crisis management: Not visible from outside
- (d) Supply chain security: Not visible from outside
- (e) Secure acquisition, development and maintenance, including vulnerability handling: Partly checked
- (f) Assessing the effectiveness of security measures: Not visible from outside
- (g) Cyber hygiene and security training: Not visible from outside
- (h) Cryptography and encryption: Partly checked
- (i) HR security, access control and asset management: One indicator
- (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
8 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
GDPR outside view
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
- Critical
EU business without adequate privacy measures
EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements
What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures
- 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
- GDPR Art. 7
- ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
- NIST PT-4: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 PT-4: Consent
- Critical
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 Strict-Transport-Security header
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
- CWE-319
- OWASP A04:2025
- ASVS V3.4.1
- RFC 6797 §6.1.1
- Mozilla TLS: Mozilla Server Side TLS 6.0 intermediate: hsts_min_age 63072000
- NIS2 21(2)(h)
- IR 2024/2690 9.2(a): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 9.2(a): Cryptography
- NIST SC-8: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-8: Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
- High
Missing X-Frame-Options header
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
- CWE-1021
- OWASP A06:2025
- CAPEC-103
- ASVS V3.4.6
- OWASP Secure Headers: OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends X-Frame-Options: deny
- RFC 7034
- 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';…
- High
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
Keep watching wearejohan.nl
This scan found 29 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
- 47
- Security headers
- 15
- Email security
- 60
- DNS health
- 65
- Network security
- 100
- GDPR outside view
- 33
- Average
- 53
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
Security posture
Recommendations
- Implement comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with clear consent mechanisms to comply with GDPR.
- Add security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Strict-Transport-Security to harden the site against common attacks.
- Enable IP anonymization in Google Analytics to enhance user privacy and regulatory compliance.
- Publish incident response contact information and consider adding a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file.
- Regularly audit third-party scripts and dependencies to ensure no vulnerable libraries are included.
Site observations
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Business
- Company
- We Are Johan
- Description
- We Are Johan is een klein onafhankelijk reclamebureau met stoere klanten in Nederland, België en de rest van de wereld. Omdat de wereld al onnodig complex wordt gemaakt, geloven wij in simpele, creatieve en effectieve oplossingen.
- Key services
- Concept, Art direction, Online marketing, Advertising
- Content quality
- good
- Branding
- consistent
Technology
- Stack
- Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Google reCAPTCHA, Webflow, Typekit Fonts, Google Fonts, Lottie animations
- Frameworks
- Webflow
- Platforms
- Webflow
- Performance
- moderate
- Mobile
- good
- Accessibility
- basic
- SEO
- good
Security
- Observed score
- 75/100
- Good practices seen
- HTTPS enabled
- Google reCAPTCHA implemented on forms
- Google Tag Manager and Analytics configured with IP anonymization disabled
Analytics and tracking
- Services
- Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager
- Tracking level
- moderate
- Privacy practices
- poor
Advertising
- Transparency
- basic
Site quality
- Design
- good
- User experience
- good
- Content relevance
- good
- Navigation
- good
- Professionalism
- good
- Trustworthiness
- moderate
Key observations
- Website is a small independent advertising agency based in the Netherlands
- No explicit privacy, cookie, or terms of service policies found
- Contact information is primarily via contact form; no direct emails or phone numbers found in the HTML
- Uses modern web technologies and hosting platform (Webflow)
- Implements Google Analytics and Tag Manager without IP anonymization
- Security headers are missing; HTTPS is properly configured
- No vulnerability disclosure or incident response information present
- Social media presence includes Instagram link
- Content is professional and safe for general audiences
Technical notes
Notes
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.
- MITRE CWE (opens in a new tab)4.20 (2026-04-30) · CWE Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP Top 10:2025 (opens in a new tab)2025 (membership per CWE 4.20) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- MITRE CAPEC (opens in a new tab)3.9 (2023-01-24) · CAPEC Terms of Use (free use with attribution, © MITRE)
- OWASP ASVS (opens in a new tab)5.0.0 · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Web Security Testing Guide (opens in a new tab)latest (checklist.json, master) · CC BY-SA 4.0
- OWASP Secure Headers Project (opens in a new tab)2026-10-18 · Apache-2.0
- Mozilla Server Side TLS (intermediate) (opens in a new tab)6.0 · MPL-2.0
- NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 (OSCAL catalog) (opens in a new tab)5.2.0 · Public domain (US Government work)
- Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 (opens in a new tab)OJ L, 18.10.2024 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 119, 4.5.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive 2002/58/EC (ePrivacy), consolidated (opens in a new tab)19.12.2009 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- RFC Editor metadata (opens in a new tab)per-RFC (obsolete RFCs rejected) · IETF Trust Legal Provisions (metadata only)
- NIST CSRC, W3C TR, IETF Datatracker, EDPB, EUR-Lex CELLAR and gesetze-bayern.de (opens in a new tab)per document · Titles and links only
- NIST NVD CVE API 2.0 (opens in a new tab)live records · Public domain (NVD); CVE® records © MITRE, free use
- W3C WCAG 2.2 (opens in a new tab)W3C Recommendation (wcag.json) · W3C Software and Document License
- ETSI EN 301 549 (opens in a new tab)V3.2.1 (2021-03), clause headings · Clause numbers and titles only (© ETSI)
- Directive (EU) 2019/882 (European Accessibility Act) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 151, 7.6.2019 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (Web Accessibility Directive) (opens in a new tab)OJ L 327, 2.12.2016 · EUR-Lex reuse under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU (© European Union)
Retrieved 2026-10-25
Feedback on this report
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with wearejohan.nl. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review wearejohan.nl.