Skip to main content

Security report for fondation-inria.fr

Fondation Inria · Technology · France

High risk. 9 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Security headers and 1 other check.

Security score

37/100

Risk levelHigh

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

Fondation Inria is a French non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting research and innovation projects that leverage digital technologies to address major societal challenges such as health, environment, education, and trust in society. The foundation acts as a bridge between academia, industry, and civil society, facilitating partnerships and fundraising to drive impactful digital transformation. The website reflects a professional and consistent brand presence with clear messaging targeting donors, partners, and the academic community. Technically, the site is built on WordPress with React and jQuery, optimized for SEO with Yoast, but suffers from slow load times and lacks a valid SSL certificate, which impacts security posture. Privacy and cookie policies are present and GDPR compliant, but no explicit security or incident response policies are publicly available. Social media presence is active on LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube, supporting engagement and transparency.

Scanned

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

9 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

  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 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 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 fondation-inria.fr

This scan found 19 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
15
Email security
50
DNS health
85
Network security
20
GDPR outside view
0
Average
37

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 foundation occupies a niche position as a technology-focused non-profit entity linked to INRIA, a major French research institute. Its business model relies on donations, partnerships, and supporting research projects that align with digital societal challenges. The website content and structure emphasize impact and collaboration, targeting donors and institutional partners. The use of HelloAsso for donations indicates integration with established fundraising platforms. The foundation's market presence is stable with a medium organizational size, focusing on technology and non-profit sectors. No subsidiaries or parent companies beyond INRIA are identified. The foundation maintains a professional digital presence but could improve technical performance and security to enhance trust and operational resilience.

Security posture

The website currently exhibits a basic security posture with critical gaps. The SSL certificate is invalid or missing, resulting in no proper HTTPS protection, which is a significant risk for user data and trust. No security headers such as HSTS, Content Security Policy, or X-Frame-Options are implemented, increasing exposure to common web attacks. The site uses Matomo analytics, which is privacy-friendly, but no explicit vulnerability disclosure or incident response policies are found. Contact information for security incidents is absent, and no security framework certifications are indicated. The lack of session resumption and OCSP stapling further limits SSL performance and security. Overall, the site requires urgent improvements in SSL configuration and security headers to meet modern security standards and compliance requirements.

Recommendations

  1. Obtain and correctly install a valid SSL/TLS certificate to enable HTTPS and protect user data.
  2. Implement essential security headers including HSTS, Content Security Policy, and X-Frame-Options.
  3. Publish a clear security policy and incident response plan with dedicated contact channels.
  4. Regularly audit and update all third-party libraries and plugins to mitigate vulnerabilities.
  5. Optimize website performance to reduce load times and improve user experience.
Technical notes

Notes

The website is built on WordPress CMS with React and jQuery libraries, leveraging Yoast SEO for optimization and WP Rocket for caching and performance enhancements. Hosting is provided by OVH, as indicated by DNS nameservers. Despite modern technologies, the site suffers from slow load times (~22 seconds) and lacks a valid SSL certificate, impacting security and user trust. Accessibility is basic with some focus-visible outlines and semantic HTML elements. SEO is well implemented with structured data (JSON-LD), Open Graph tags, and meta tags. The site uses Matomo for analytics, favoring privacy. Technical debt includes missing security headers and incomplete SSL configuration. Opportunities exist to improve performance, security, and accessibility to enhance overall digital maturity.
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 fondation-inria.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 fondation-inria.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.