Skip to main content

Security report for wmprof.com

Werner Mertz Professional · Manufacturing · Germany

High risk. 5 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, SSL/TLS and 1 other check.

Security score

40/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Werner Mertz Professional is a medium-sized manufacturing company specializing in high-performance hygiene solutions for professional cleaning markets. With over 50 years of history and a strong commitment to sustainability, the company operates under well-known brands such as Green Care Professional and Tana Professional. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content, professional design, and strong SEO practices. However, the lack of a valid SSL certificate and proper HTTPS configuration represents a significant security risk that undermines user trust and data protection. The company has implemented cookie consent mechanisms and privacy policies compliant with GDPR, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. Overall, the business is credible and well-positioned in its sector but must urgently address its security posture to meet modern standards.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
18/ 100 · Critical
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. GDPR outside view

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

    • Critical

      No HTTPS encryption

      GDPR requires appropriate security measures for personal data

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate for HTTPS

    • 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

  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.

    • Critical

      No HTTPS Encryption

      Website does not use HTTPS encryption, making all data transmission vulnerable to interception

      What to do: Implement SSL/TLS certificate and redirect all HTTP traffic to HTTPS

  3. Network security

    Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.

    • High

      High-Risk Service Exposed: FTP

      Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer

      What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication

      • NIS2 21(2)(e)
      • IR 2024/2690 6.7.2(f): Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690, Annex point 6.7.2(f): Network security
      • NIST CM-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 CM-7: Least Functionality
      • NIST SC-7: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SC-7: Boundary Protection

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

Keep watching wmprof.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
0
Security headers
65
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
18
Average
40

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 company targets commercial customers in the professional cleaning sector, offering sustainable and certified cleaning products. Its business model is B2B manufacturing and distribution, with a focus on sustainability and innovation, such as dosing and refill systems. The website's content and branding are consistent and professional, supporting its market position as a sustainable hygiene solutions provider. The presence of certifications like EcoVadis and Dermatest enhances trust. The company appears to have a strong partnership ecosystem and a clear growth strategy centered on sustainability. However, the absence of phone contact details may limit direct customer engagement.

Security posture

The website employs several security headers and a comprehensive Content Security Policy, which are positive indicators. However, the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS support is a critical vulnerability that exposes users to data interception and undermines trust. The site lacks DNSSEC and CAA records, and no advanced SSL features like OCSP stapling or session resumption are enabled. While cookie consent and privacy compliance are well implemented, the overall security posture is weak due to the missing HTTPS. No incident response or security policy pages were found, indicating potential gaps in security governance and incident management readiness.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and properly configure a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 or TLS 1.3) and disable all insecure protocols.
  3. Implement DNSSEC and CAA records to enhance DNS and certificate security.
  4. Review and tighten Content Security Policy to remove 'unsafe-inline' and 'unsafe-eval' where possible.
  5. Add explicit security policy and incident response information on the website to improve transparency and readiness.
  6. Consider adding clear phone contact details to improve customer support accessibility.
Technical notes

Notes

The website runs on a modern WordPress CMS with PHP 8.3.22 and nginx server. It uses a variety of plugins including Yoast SEO for optimization, Contact Form 7 for forms, Borlabs Cookie for consent management, Friendly Captcha for bot protection, and Matomo for analytics. The site is well structured with JSON-LD and Open Graph metadata for SEO and social sharing. Performance data was not available, but the site uses modern frontend libraries like Slick Carousel and Isotope Layout. Mobile optimization and accessibility are good, with clear navigation and responsive design. Hosting appears to be managed by udag.de based on DNS records. The main technical risk is the lack of HTTPS, which should be prioritized for remediation.
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 wmprof.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 wmprof.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.