Skip to main content

Security report for compared.edu.au

QILT · Education · Australia

Low risk. 3 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view and SSL/TLS.

Security score

80/100

Risk levelLow

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

ComparED is an Australian Government initiative powered by QILT that provides prospective students with tools to explore and compare higher education institutions and study areas based on real student experiences and graduate employment outcomes. The website serves as a trusted public information platform to support informed study choices. Technically, the site is built as a modern Angular single-page application leveraging Materialize CSS and integrates multiple analytics and tracking services such as Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Hotjar. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, though it lacks some security headers and explicit cookie consent mechanisms. Security posture is solid with HTTPS enforced and no visible vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data. WHOIS data is privacy protected and minimal, which is typical for .edu.au domains and justified given the government affiliation. Overall, the site is professional, trustworthy, and safe for general audiences.

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

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 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.

    • 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 compared.edu.au

This scan found 17 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
77
Security headers
80
Email security
100
DNS health
70
Network security
100
GDPR outside view
53
Average
80

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 website occupies a niche as an official government-backed educational comparison tool, providing unique value through access to QILT survey data covering over 2 million students and graduates. Its business model is non-commercial, focusing on public service and transparency in higher education quality indicators. The target audience is prospective Australian higher education students seeking data-driven insights. The site benefits from strong government endorsement and partnerships, enhancing credibility and market position. While direct revenue streams are not applicable, the platform supports government education policy and student decision-making. The technical infrastructure is modern but could benefit from enhanced security policies and privacy compliance improvements. The partnership ecosystem includes QILT and the Australian Government, with no detected subsidiaries or commercial partners.

Security posture

The security maturity level of the website is moderate to good. HTTPS is properly implemented, ensuring encrypted communications. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces defense-in-depth. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the source code. The site lacks a published security policy, incident response information, or vulnerability disclosure program, which are recommended for transparency and trust. Privacy compliance is partial, with a privacy policy present but no cookie consent mechanism. Incident response readiness and security culture indicators are not evident from the public content. Overall, the site is secure for its purpose but could improve by adopting additional security best practices and compliance measures.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Add a clear cookie consent banner/mechanism to comply with privacy regulations and improve user transparency.
  3. Publish a dedicated security policy and incident response contact information to build trust and facilitate vulnerability reporting.
  4. Consider creating and hosting a security.txt file to formalize vulnerability disclosure processes.
  5. Regularly audit third-party scripts and tracking services to minimize privacy risks and ensure compliance with data protection standards.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
QILT
Description
ComparED is a government initiative powered by QILT that allows users to explore and compare higher education institutions and study areas based on real-life student experiences and graduate employment outcomes.
Key services
Institution and study area comparison, Access to QILT survey reports, Student experience and graduate employment data
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Angular 5.2.11, Materialize CSS 1.0.0-beta, jQuery Slick Carousel, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, Hotjar
Frameworks
Angular
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enforced
  • No visible exposed sensitive data
  • Use of secure external analytics and tracking

Analytics and tracking

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

Advertising

Tracking pixels
Hotjar
Marketing tools
Hotjar
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is fully accessible with no blocking or WAF challenges.
  2. WHOIS data is unavailable due to privacy and query restrictions.
  3. Site is a government-backed educational comparison tool.
  4. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found on homepage.
  5. Privacy and terms pages exist but cookie consent is missing.
  6. Uses modern Angular SPA framework with good UX and mobile support.
  7. Includes multiple external analytics and tracking scripts.
  8. No security.txt or explicit security policy found.
  9. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data detected in source.
  10. Content is safe and suitable for general audiences.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern Angular 5.2.11 framework with Materialize CSS for styling and jQuery Slick for carousel functionality. It is a single-page application with client-side routing. The site loads multiple external resources from trusted CDNs and integrates Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and Hotjar for analytics and user behavior tracking. Performance is moderate with asynchronous script loading and responsive design for mobile devices. Accessibility is basic but present, with skip links and ARIA labels. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and Open Graph data. The site does not use a traditional CMS but appears custom-built. Hosting provider details are not discernible from the content. Technical risks include missing security headers and lack of explicit privacy consent mechanisms, which could impact compliance and security posture.
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 compared.edu.au. 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 compared.edu.au.

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.