Skip to main content

Security report for accenture.com

Accenture · Technology · Finland

Medium risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view.

Security score

68/100

Risk levelMedium

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

Accenture is a leading global professional services company specializing in consulting, technology, and digital transformation. The website content reflects a strong market position with comprehensive service offerings across multiple industries including technology, energy, finance, manufacturing, and government sectors. The company targets enterprise clients seeking innovation and digital reinvention. Technically, the site is built on Adobe Experience Manager, leveraging modern web technologies and content delivery via Amazon CloudFront. The site is well-optimized for SEO, accessibility, and mobile devices, with rich multimedia content and clear navigation. Security posture shows presence of key security headers and HSTS, but the SSL certificate is invalid and no modern TLS protocols are enabled, representing a critical vulnerability that must be addressed. Privacy compliance is robust with a clear privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism via OneTrust. Business credibility is high with multiple awards and recognitions displayed. Overall, the site is professional and trustworthy but requires urgent SSL and TLS remediation to improve security and user trust.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of accenture.com. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
40/ 100 · High
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. GDPR outside view

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

    • High

      No Privacy Policy found

      GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy

      What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently

    • 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

    • High

      Third-party services without privacy policy

      Detected services: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Cloudflare

      What to do: Document all third-party data sharing in your privacy policy

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

Keep watching accenture.com

This scan found 12 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
50
Security headers
80
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
40
Average
68

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

Breach exposure

Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.

Dark web exposure

Add-on

Leaked records that mention accenture.com, from OffSeq Breach.

Total records
327,717
Employees
7,225
Customers
284,814
Third parties
35,678
Weak passwords
9%

Latest record dated 2026-06-18 · 1,840 subdomains affected

See the 10 newest leaked credentials

A one-off add-on to this report that lists the most recent identifier and password pairs OffSeq Breach holds for accenture.com.

Select it in the checkout above.

Masked preview

  • –federation-sts.accenture.com2026-06-18
  • –accenture.com2026-06-18
  • –federation-sts.accenture.com2026-06-18
  • –federation-sts.accenture.com2026-06-18
  • –federation-sts.accenture.com2026-06-18

Breach keeps ingesting new leaks, so these numbers can grow between scans.

Open in Breach(opens in a new tab)Monitor on Breach(opens in a new tab)

Technical appendix

Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.

Business context

Business profile

Accenture operates as an essential entity in the technology and consulting sector, serving a broad range of industries globally. The business model focuses on delivering consulting, digital engineering, AI, cybersecurity, and managed services. The company maintains a strong brand presence with consistent messaging and extensive global reach, including localized content for Finland. The partnership ecosystem includes media and investor relations domains. Growth indicators include active news updates and innovation showcases. The company emphasizes sustainability, talent development, and emerging technologies, positioning itself as a market leader in digital transformation services.

Security posture

The website implements several security best practices such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-XSS-Protection, and HSTS with preload. However, the SSL certificate is invalid or missing, and no TLS protocols (1.2 or 1.3) are enabled, which is a critical security flaw exposing users to potential interception and downgrade attacks. OCSP stapling and session resumption are not implemented, reducing SSL performance and security. The Content-Security-Policy allows unsafe-eval and unsafe-inline, which could increase risk of cross-site scripting attacks. No explicit incident response or security policy pages were found. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires immediate SSL/TLS fixes and CSP tightening to meet enterprise security standards.

Recommendations

  1. Immediately fix and renew the SSL certificate to ensure valid HTTPS connections.
  2. Enable and enforce modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) to secure data in transit.
  3. Implement OCSP stapling and session resumption to improve SSL performance and security.
  4. Review and tighten Content-Security-Policy to remove unsafe-eval and unsafe-inline directives.
  5. Publish explicit security policies and incident response procedures to enhance transparency and trust.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is hosted on Amazon CloudFront CDN and built using Adobe Experience Manager CMS, indicating a mature and scalable infrastructure. The tech stack includes Adobe Helix RUM for performance monitoring, jQuery libraries, OneTrust for cookie consent, and Lottie animations for rich media. The site uses Flickity for carousels and has preconnect and dns-prefetch optimizations for external resources. Performance metrics are moderate with room for improvement. Accessibility and SEO are well addressed with proper meta tags, ARIA roles, and structured data (JSON-LD). The invalid SSL and lack of TLS support represent the main technical risk. Overall, the infrastructure is modern but requires SSL/TLS remediation and continuous 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

Earlier scans of this domain

  1. 90/100Low17 findingsView report
  2. 90/100Low17 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with accenture.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 accenture.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.