Skip to main content

Security report for webaward.org

Web Marketing Association · Media · N/a

Medium risk. 4 critical or high findings in Security headers, GDPR outside view and 1 other check.

Security score

72/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The WebAward website represents an established awards program operated by the Web Marketing Association, focused on recognizing excellence in website design and development since 1997. The site targets web marketing professionals, agencies, and businesses seeking industry recognition. The business model centers on hosting an annual competition with multiple industry categories, judged by a panel, and publicizing winners to enhance market visibility. Technically, the website employs a traditional tech stack including jQuery 1.11.2, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and LinkedIn Insight tags. The site is mobile responsive with good navigation and SEO practices, though some modernization opportunities exist such as updating JavaScript libraries and implementing security headers. Performance is moderate with no major issues detected. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS but lacks key security headers and cookie consent mechanisms. No direct vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were found, but the use of outdated libraries and missing security policies indicate room for improvement. The WHOIS data is incomplete and malformed, which reduces domain trustworthiness despite the professional site content. Overall, the website is functional and credible for its purpose but would benefit from enhanced security practices, improved privacy compliance, and better WHOIS transparency to strengthen trust and reduce risk.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
53/ 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

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 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

  2. 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

    • 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 webaward.org

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
67
Security headers
65
Email security
85
DNS health
60
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
72

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 Web Marketing Association holds a niche position in the media sector as a standards-defining awards program for websites. Its competitive advantage lies in its longevity and industry recognition since 1997. Revenue likely derives from entry fees and sponsorships, supported by partnerships with known sponsors such as PR.com and IRCE. The target customers are agencies and businesses seeking validation and marketing leverage through awards. Growth indicators include an extended deadline for 2025 entries and active sponsor engagement. The partnership ecosystem is well established, though no parent or subsidiary companies are identified. Strategic observations suggest focusing on digital modernization and enhanced compliance to maintain market leadership.

Security posture

The current security posture is moderate. HTTPS is enforced, but the absence of security headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options weakens defense-in-depth. The site uses outdated jQuery 1.11.2, which may expose it to known vulnerabilities. No explicit security or incident response policies are published, and no contact channels for security incidents are provided. Privacy compliance is basic with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism or GDPR indicators. The WHOIS data is incomplete, which may raise concerns for domain legitimacy. Overall, the site is functional but requires improvements in security best practices and compliance to reduce risk.

Recommendations

  1. Implement comprehensive security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  2. Upgrade JavaScript libraries, especially jQuery, to the latest secure versions to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  3. Add a cookie consent banner and enhance privacy compliance to align with GDPR and other regulations.
  4. Publish explicit security policies and incident response contact information to improve transparency and readiness.
  5. Improve WHOIS data accuracy or use verified domain registration to enhance domain trustworthiness.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
Web Marketing Association
Description
WebAward competition is the standards-defining award program from the Web Marketing Association that sets industry benchmarks based on the seven criteria of a successful Web site.
Key services
Website awards competition, Industry category recognition, Judging and awarding websites, Publishing winners and guidelines
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
jQuery 1.11.2, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, LinkedIn Insight Tag, AddThis
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
65/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, LinkedIn Insight Tag
Tracking level
moderate
Privacy practices
basic

Advertising

Ad networks
Google Ads
Tracking pixels
LinkedIn Insight Tag
Marketing tools
AddThis
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF detected
  2. WHOIS data is incomplete and malformed, limiting domain trust analysis
  3. Website uses HTTPS and standard tracking technologies
  4. No privacy or cookie consent banners detected despite privacy policy presence
  5. Contact information is limited to a contact page with a form, no direct emails or phone numbers found
  6. No explicit security policies or incident response information published
  7. Website content is relevant and professionally presented for an awards program
  8. External links mostly to sponsors and partners, no suspicious domains detected
Technical notes

Notes

The website uses a legacy jQuery version (1.11.2) alongside modern tracking tools such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and LinkedIn Insight tags. The HTML structure is valid and the site is mobile responsive with good SEO meta tags. However, the absence of security headers and outdated libraries indicate technical debt. Hosting provider details are not discernible. Performance is moderate with no critical issues but could benefit from optimization. The site lacks a CMS indication, suggesting a custom or static site architecture. Modernization efforts should focus on updating libraries, adding security headers, and implementing privacy mechanisms.
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 webaward.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 webaward.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.