Skip to main content

Security report for ecaconsortium.net

The European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA) · Education · Netherlands

Medium risk. 6 critical or high findings in Email security, Security headers and 2 other checks.

Security score

60/100

Risk levelMedium

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

The European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA) is a recognized association of accreditation and quality assurance agencies across Europe. It serves as a driver of innovation in higher education accreditation, supporting the implementation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and promoting internationalisation. The organization offers a variety of services including certification for quality in internationalisation, training academies, working groups, webinars, and participation in EU-funded projects. The website targets higher education institutions, accreditation agencies, and stakeholders interested in quality assurance in Europe. Technically, the website is built on WordPress using the Elementor page builder, with modern JavaScript libraries such as Swiper.js and Font Awesome for UI elements. It is hosted by OVH SAS, a reputable hosting provider. The site demonstrates good mobile optimization, accessibility, and SEO practices, with a moderate performance profile. Privacy compliance is well addressed with a clear privacy policy and cookie consent mechanism. From a security perspective, the site uses HTTPS and implements cookie consent but lacks explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy or X-Frame-Options. No vulnerabilities or exposed sensitive data were detected. The WHOIS data is consistent with the website's business claims, registered through a reputable registrar without privacy protection, indicating transparency. Overall, the website presents a professional and trustworthy digital presence for ECA, with good content quality and compliance. Recommendations include enhancing security headers, publishing a security policy, and adding incident response contact information to further strengthen trust and security posture.

Scanned

NIS2 and GDPR posture

GDPR outside view
100/ 100 · Low
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. Email security

    SPF, DKIM and DMARC stop others sending email that looks like it comes from your domain, a common route to phishing and invoice fraud.

    • Critical

      No email authentication configured

      Domain is vulnerable to email spoofing

      What to do: Implement SPF, DKIM, and DMARC immediately

    • High

      No SPF record found

      SPF helps prevent email spoofing

      What to do: Add SPF record: "v=spf1 include:_spf.yourmailprovider.com ~all"

  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';…

  3. 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 ecaconsortium.net

This scan found 20 issues across 5 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
72
Security headers
50
Email security
40
DNS health
75
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
100
Average
60

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 ecaconsortium.net, from OffSeq Breach.

No leaked records found

Breach holds no records for ecaconsortium.net right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.

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

ECA occupies a niche position as a European consortium focused on accreditation and quality assurance in higher education. Its competitive advantage lies in its recognized network of agencies and its role in supporting the EHEA. The business model is non-profit and service-oriented, providing certifications, training, and project participation. Revenue streams likely include membership fees, training fees, and project funding. The target customers are higher education institutions and accreditation bodies across Europe. Growth indicators include active participation in EU projects and a visible presence in quality assurance events. The partnership ecosystem includes multiple accreditation agencies as evidenced by logos on the site. The organization maintains a professional online presence with consistent branding and clear communication.

Security posture

The website demonstrates a moderate to good security maturity level. HTTPS is enforced, and cookie consent is implemented, indicating awareness of privacy regulations. However, the absence of explicit security headers such as Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, and X-Content-Type-Options represents a gap that could be exploited in certain attack vectors. No exposed sensitive information or vulnerable libraries were detected in the HTML content. There is no published security policy or incident response contact, which limits transparency and readiness for security incidents. Compliance with GDPR is evident through privacy and cookie policies. Overall, the security posture is adequate for the organization's size and sector but could be improved with additional security controls and documentation.

Recommendations

  1. Implement and configure security headers including Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, and Referrer-Policy to enhance protection against common web attacks.
  2. Publish a formal security policy and incident response plan on the website to improve transparency and preparedness.
  3. Add a vulnerability disclosure policy or security.txt file to facilitate responsible reporting of security issues.
  4. Ensure all WordPress core, themes, and plugins are regularly updated to mitigate known vulnerabilities.
  5. Consider adding explicit contact channels for security incidents such as security@ or abuse@ email addresses.

Contact details published on the site

Addresses
Site observations

Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.

Business

Company
The European Consortium for Accreditation in higher education (ECA)
Description
ECA is an association of recognised accreditation and quality assurance agencies in Europe. It acts as an internationally acknowledged driver of innovation in accreditation and quality assurance in higher education, contributing to the implementation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), promoting internationalisation and state-of-the-art activities of its members.
Key services
Internationalisation certificate (CeQuInt), Training Academy, Working Groups, Webinars, EU Projects, Publications
Content quality
good
Branding
consistent

Technology

Stack
WordPress, Elementor, jQuery, Swiper.js, Font Awesome, GDPR Cookie Compliance plugin, MailPoet
Frameworks
Elementor
Platforms
WordPress
Performance
moderate
Mobile
good
Accessibility
good
SEO
good

Security

Observed score
80/100
Good practices seen
  • HTTPS enabled
  • Cookie consent mechanism implemented
  • No exposed sensitive data in HTML
  • Use of security plugins (GDPR Cookie Compliance)

Analytics and tracking

Services
burst-statistics
Tracking level
minimal
Privacy practices
good

Advertising

Tracking pixels
burst-statistics
Marketing tools
MailPoet
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. Content is focused on higher education accreditation and quality assurance.
  3. Professional design and consistent branding.
  4. Cookie consent and privacy policy are implemented and accessible.
  5. No terms of service or explicit security policy found.
  6. Contact information is clearly provided including email and physical address.
  7. No phone numbers explicitly labeled as company contact found.
  8. Use of modern WordPress CMS with Elementor builder and common plugins.
  9. Social media presence on Twitter and LinkedIn.
  10. No suspicious or malicious content detected.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on a modern WordPress platform using the Elementor page builder, which provides flexibility and ease of content management. It uses common JavaScript libraries such as jQuery and Swiper.js for interactive elements and Font Awesome for icons. The presence of GDPR Cookie Compliance and MailPoet plugins indicates attention to privacy and marketing automation. Hosting is provided by OVH SAS, a reputable provider. Performance is moderate, with some optimization possible. Accessibility features such as an accessibility toolbar and skip links are implemented, enhancing usability. SEO is supported by proper meta tags and structured navigation. Technical risks include potential plugin vulnerabilities and missing security headers, which should be addressed to reduce attack surface.
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 ecaconsortium.net. 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 ecaconsortium.net.

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.