Skip to main content

Security report for afnic.fr

Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération · Technology · France

Medium risk. 7 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and Security headers.

Security score

63/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The Association Française pour le Nommage Internet en Coopération (Afnic) operates as the official registry for French country code top-level domains including .fr and several overseas extensions. It provides domain registration services, registry solutions for custom gTLDs, support, dispute resolution, training, and publishes internet-related studies and statistics. The organization targets French internet users, businesses, registrars, and public institutions, positioning itself as a key player in France's internet infrastructure ecosystem. Technically, the website is built on WordPress with Bootstrap and uses modern plugins for forms, captcha, and analytics. The site is well-structured with good SEO and accessibility features, though performance is moderate. The hosting provider is not explicitly identified but the IP suggests a reputable provider. The site is mobile-optimized and uses structured data for enhanced search engine understanding. From a security perspective, the site currently lacks a valid SSL certificate and does not have HTTPS properly configured, which is a critical issue impacting user trust and data security. While HSTS is enabled and SPF records are valid, the absence of DNSSEC, CAA records, and security headers reduces the overall security posture. No incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies are publicly available. Overall, the website is professional, content-rich, and compliant with privacy and cookie regulations, but the lack of proper SSL/TLS configuration is a significant risk. Strategic improvements in security infrastructure and transparency would enhance trust and compliance.

Scanned

This is an earlier scan of afnic.fr. View the latest report

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
0/ 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

7 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

      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 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 Policy found

      GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage

      What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes

  2. 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 X-Frame-Options header

      Prevents clickjacking attacks

      What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"

    • 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';…

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

Keep watching afnic.fr

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. 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
85
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
75
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
0
Average
63

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

Afnic holds a strong market position as the official registry for French ccTLDs, serving a broad audience including businesses, registrars, and public entities. Its business model centers on domain registration and internet infrastructure services, supplemented by educational and support offerings. The organization maintains partnerships with numerous recognized institutions, enhancing its ecosystem and credibility. Growth indicators include active publication of domain statistics and engagement in digital solidarity initiatives. The website reflects a mature digital presence with comprehensive content and multi-language support, indicating a focus on accessibility and user engagement.

Security posture

The current security maturity level is moderate but hindered by the absence of a valid SSL certificate and HTTPS enforcement, which are fundamental for secure communications. The presence of HSTS and SPF records are positive indicators, but the lack of DNSSEC, CAA, and security headers exposes the site to potential DNS and web-based attacks. No public incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms were found, suggesting limited transparency in security operations. The site uses privacy-conscious analytics (Matomo) and cookie consent management, aligning with GDPR requirements. Overall, the security posture requires urgent improvements in TLS configuration and enhanced security policies.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and deploy a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS across the entire site.
  2. Enable modern TLS protocols (TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3) and disable deprecated versions.
  3. Implement DNSSEC and CAA records to strengthen DNS security and certificate issuance control.
  4. Add essential security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options.
  5. Publish a clear security policy and vulnerability disclosure program to improve transparency and incident response readiness.
Technical notes

Notes

The website leverages a modern and widely supported technology stack including WordPress CMS, Bootstrap framework, and jQuery library. It integrates advanced plugins for multi-step forms, captcha verification, and analytics tracking with Matomo, indicating a focus on user experience and privacy. Performance is moderate with a page load time of approximately 4.7 seconds and a page size of 243 KB, which is acceptable but could be optimized. Mobile optimization is good, and SEO practices are well implemented with structured data and meta tags. Hosting details are not explicit but the IP address suggests a reputable provider. Technical debt appears low, but the invalid SSL certificate is a critical technical risk that must be addressed promptly.
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. 71/100 +3Medium26 findingsView report
  2. 68/100Medium29 findingsView report
Reviews of this site

Share your experience with afnic.fr. 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 afnic.fr.

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.