Skip to main content

Security report for concrete.org

American Concrete Institute · Manufacturing · United States

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Network security, SSL/TLS and 2 other checks.

Security score

55/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) website for the Western Europe region serves as a professional portal providing access to standards, educational programs, certification, and technical resources related to concrete design and construction. The organization is positioned as a global authority in the concrete industry, targeting professionals and organizations involved in concrete materials and construction. The website content is relevant and well-structured, supporting the business model of standards development and education. Technically, the site is built on ASP.NET WebForms and uses the DotNetNuke CMS platform. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools including Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and Bing Ads. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization and SEO practices but has basic accessibility features. Performance is moderate, with room for improvement in modernizing the tech stack and enhancing security headers. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS but lacks visible security headers and explicit privacy or cookie policies on the analyzed page. There is no evidence of published incident response or vulnerability disclosure policies. The WHOIS data is malformed and missing critical registration details, which reduces domain trustworthiness despite the professional appearance of the website. Overall, the site is functional and professional but would benefit from enhanced privacy compliance, improved security practices, and transparent domain registration information to strengthen trust and compliance posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
58/ 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

6 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.

  1. 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: RPC

      Port 135 (RPC) is publicly accessible - RPC - Windows RPC endpoint

      What to do: Consider restricting access to RPC 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

  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

  3. 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
    • 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';…

  4. 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

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

Keep watching concrete.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. 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
47
Security headers
35
Email security
85
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
58
Average
55

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

ACI holds a strong market position as a leading standards and educational body in the concrete industry. Its business model focuses on membership, certification, and dissemination of technical knowledge. The website supports this by offering membership information, educational resources, and regional portals. The extensive use of tracking and marketing tools indicates a mature digital marketing approach aimed at engagement and lead generation. However, the absence of clear contact information and privacy policies on this page may hinder user trust and regulatory compliance. The lack of WHOIS transparency is a notable gap in business credibility. The organization targets professionals, students, and organizations in construction and materials sectors, leveraging a global network. The site’s content and structure reflect a large enterprise with consistent branding and a focus on technical authority. Strategic partnerships or subsidiaries are not explicitly identified in the provided data.

Security posture

The website employs HTTPS, which is mandatory for secure communications. However, the absence of key security headers such as Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), and X-Frame-Options reduces its defense-in-depth posture. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected in the HTML content. The extensive use of third-party analytics and marketing scripts increases the attack surface and privacy risks, especially without clear cookie consent mechanisms. No published security policies, incident response contacts, or vulnerability disclosure programs were found, indicating potential gaps in security governance and transparency. The malformed WHOIS data further complicates trust verification. Overall, the security posture is moderate but requires improvements in headers, privacy compliance, and transparency to align with best practices and regulatory requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and enforce security headers including CSP, HSTS, and X-Frame-Options to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish comprehensive privacy and cookie policies with explicit user consent mechanisms to improve GDPR and global privacy compliance.
  3. Establish and publicize incident response and vulnerability disclosure policies to build trust and demonstrate security maturity.
  4. Resolve WHOIS data issues by ensuring accurate and complete domain registration information is publicly available.
  5. Conduct a security audit of third-party scripts and minimize tracking to reduce privacy risks and improve site performance.
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
American Concrete Institute
Description
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) is a leading authority and resource worldwide for the development and distribution of consensus-based standards, technical resources, educational programs, certification programs, and proven expertise for individuals and organizations involved in concrete design, construction, and materials, who share a commitment to pursuing the best use of concrete.
Key services
Consensus-based standards development, Technical resources, Educational programs, Certification programs
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Hotjar, Google Tag Manager, Bing Ads, jQuery, ASP.NET WebForms
Frameworks
ASP.NET
Platforms
Windows Server (likely), Microsoft IIS (likely)
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
basic
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
60/100
Good practices seen
  • Use of HTTPS (implied by URL)
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML

Analytics and tracking

Services
Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Bing Ads
Tracking level
extensive
Privacy practices
poor

Advertising

Ad networks
Bing Ads, LinkedIn Ads
Tracking pixels
Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar, LinkedIn Insight Tag, Bing Ads
Marketing tools
Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity
Transparency
basic

Site quality

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

Key observations

  1. Website is accessible and not blocked by WAF.
  2. Content is professional and relevant to concrete industry.
  3. No explicit privacy or cookie policies found on this page.
  4. Multiple tracking and analytics scripts are used extensively.
  5. WHOIS data is missing or malformed, limiting domain trust assessment.
  6. No direct contact emails or phone numbers found in the provided HTML.
  7. Site uses ASP.NET WebForms and DotNetNuke CMS.
  8. Mobile optimization and SEO are good but accessibility is basic.
  9. No security headers detected in the HTML content.
  10. No vulnerability disclosure or incident response info found.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a mature but somewhat dated technology stack including ASP.NET WebForms and DotNetNuke CMS. It integrates multiple analytics and marketing tools, which indicates a focus on user engagement and data-driven marketing. The site is mobile optimized and SEO friendly, but accessibility features are basic and could be enhanced. Performance is moderate, with potential improvements by optimizing scripts and modernizing the platform. The lack of security headers and incomplete WHOIS data represent technical risks. Overall, the infrastructure supports the business needs but would benefit from modernization and enhanced security controls.
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 concrete.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 concrete.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.